War, on the other hand, is something different. At heart I am a warrior. Attacking belongs to my instincts. To _be able to be_ an enemy, to _be_ an enemy--maybe these things presuppose a strong nature; in any case all strong natures involve these things. Such natures need resistance, consequently they go in search of obstacles: the pathos of aggression belongs of necessity to strength as much as the feelings of revenge and of rancour belong to weakness. Woman, for instance, is revengeful; her weakness involves this passion, just as it involves her susceptibility in the presence of other people's suffering. The strength of the aggressor can be measured by the opposition which he needs; every increase of growth betrays itself by a seeking out of more formidable opponents--or problems: for a philosopher who is combative challenges even problems to a duel. The task is not to overcome opponents in general, but only those opponents against whom one has to summon all one's strength, one's skill, and one's swordsmanship--in fact, opponents who are one's equals.... To be one's enemy's equal--this is the first condition of an honourable duel. Where one despises, one cannot wage war. Where one commands, where one sees something _beneath_ one, one _ought_ not to wage war. My war tactics can be reduced to four principles A First, I attack only things that are triumphant--if necessary I wait until they become triumphant. Secondly, I attack only those things against which I find no allies, against which I stand alone--against which I compromise nobody but myself.... I have not yet taken one single step before the public eye, which did not compromise me: that is _my_ criterion of a proper mode of action. Thirdly, I never make personal attacks--I use a personality merely as a magnifying-glass, by means of which I render a general, but elusive and scarcely noticeable evil, more apparent. In this way I attacked David Strauss, or rather the success given to a senile book by the cultured classes of Germany--by this means I caught German culture red-handed. In this way I attacked Wagner, or rather the falsity or mongrel instincts of our "culture" which confounds the super-refined with the strong, and the effete with the great. Fourthly, I attack only those things from which all personal differences are excluded, in which any such thing as a background of disagreeable experiences is lacking. On the contrary, attacking is to me a proof of goodwill and, in certain circumstances, of gratitude. By means of it, I do honour to a thing, I distinguish a thing; whether I associate my name with that of an institution or a person, by being _against_ or _for_ either, is all the same to me. If I wage war against Christianity, I feel justified in doing so, because in that quarter I have met with no fatal experiences and difficulties--the most earnest Christians have always been kindly disposed to me. I, personally, the most essential opponent