There is no greater misunderstanding in philosophy than the functions of the two principles of Logos and Eros. Evola refers to Logos as "Tradition," describing it as the masculine, solar, secular, spiritual, and cohesive principle of reality, whereas Eros is referred to as "Anti-Tradition," which he describes to be the feminine, lunar, religious, corporeal, and volatile principle of reality. The reader should no doubt have noticed several inconsistencies in the preceding definitions. How can Tradition both be defined as something "secular" (as opposed to religious) yet be "spiritual," regardless? How can Anti-Tradition be defined as something "corporeal" (as opposed to spiritual) yet be religious, regardless? Although one might object that language is simply too limited in its ability to properly explain these universal principles in an accurate manner, it is in actuality entirely possible to prove the contrary, should one discard the notion that Tradition is Logos, whereas Anti-Tradition is Eros, and that Tradition is instead the unification of both Logos and Eros, whereas Anti-Tradition is the polarisation of Logos and Eros. Surprisingly, Evola does indeed agree with this assertion when he states that the Sun is the result of the unification of the Sun and Moon in The Hermetic Tradition. However, the inherent contradiction should be painfully apparent, for how can the Sun be both the result of the unification of itself and the Moon, whilst, at the same time, function as a distinct principle from the former Sun? Furthermore, how can Eros be regarded as Anti-Traditional when Evola clearly states in virtually all his works that the unification of Logos and Eros is what transfigures lead into gold? To be rather frank, it is quite interesting to me that no one besides myself, at least to my knowledge, has yet to notice such glaringly obvious inconsistencies, especially when considering the fact that most of his readers most certainly possess a higher level of intelligence than the average person.
Contrary to the common misconception about the golden age as an epoch where there already exists a Traditional society, as we are led to believe by Traditionalists, it is not to be defined by the end result of a previous struggle but rather by the spirit that reinvigorated the people to create such society in the first place, because the golden age is not the end result but rather the struggle towards the attainment of such goal. Thus, the solar phase is chiefly characterised by an authentic expression of creativity, whereas the lunar phase is chiefly characterised by an inauthentic adherence to dogma, customs, or various other suchlike historical artefacts, for no other reason than mere social conformity, as the meaning and utility behind the rituals have long since been forgotten due to them merely having been preserved since their creation during the golden age for the sake of tradition. Moreover, the difference between authenticity and inauthenticity is that whereas authenticity is an unconditioned expression of an individual's will, inauthenticity is instead the conditioned expression of another individual's will through the proxy of another, which, although is the iron law of nature, is dependent upon the presumption that the will is able to condition the Eros in such a way as to discipline and orient it in a healthy manner suitable for survival, otherwise the volatile nature of the Eros will lead it to its own downfall due to entropy. The culture of a particular people is thus nothing more than an aggregate of customs and tools, adequate for a particular time, in a particular geographical area, representing the various means the people employed in attempting to adapt to the pressure of the milieu in-order to survive. However, as the importance of such customs come to dissipate, due to survival no longer being as difficult to achieve as it was in the past when following such customs allowed for a higher rate of survival, the culture will come to degenerate, leaving the contemporary people to their own demise, without any form of orientation, the so-called "death of God." Moreover, regarding the proposition for a return to past traditions and institutions as a means of restoring the health of European culture, for example by deindustrialising society and to thus return to agriculture instead, it should simply be noted that there is no way to close Pandora's box after it has been opened, since there is simply no way that the common man would ever accept such a significant decrease in his quality of life after having tasted the sweet fruit of industrialism. Furthermore, equally is the alternative for an acceleration of the process, so that the cycle may exhaust itself faster, flawed in its own respect, since it presupposes that when the crisis eventually does emerge, the men will be competent and virile enough to handle it. But when we observe the state of modern man, we see no such man. Where is he? Somewhere in the future, in the appropriate phase to which he belongs, after having been forced to develop sternness in the face of despair over a long period of time, slowly becoming accustomed to the pressure of it.
But apart from the peculiar species known as the /pol/ack, to which these Traditionalists belong, there exists an even more interesting case by the name of the /x/phile, the so-called "seeker of truth" in the realm of the esoteric as opposed to the political domain. It is thus rather interesting that these friends of knowledge appear unable to enlighten us "hylics" with their divine knowledge about Sophia. Or could it perhaps be the case that these enlightened beings, whose very existence we should be forever grateful to even grace this Godforsaken world, do not know the truth? That they are, in fact, nothing but charlatans? Inquire about the esoteric meaning behind the philosopher's stone, or any other topic of interest for that matter, and not a single reply will even come close to alluding to the correct answer: a symbol of the Self. Moreover, these seekers of truth or pneumatics, as they prefer to call themselves, what, exactly, if I may be so bold to inquire, have they done precisely to achieve "Gnosis?" Assuming, of course, that they even understand the concept, for what is Gnosis, exactly? What is "Nirvana," "Salvation," or any one of these abstract concepts for that matter? Does anyone know? Did their creators even know? Omitting the testimony of the /x/phile, since they certainly have no clue regarding the matter, does the reader know? He might be obliged to guess, which would certainly be quite logical of him to assume, that they are merely various names for the same state as the solar phase, as described in the preceding paragraph. However, that is, in fact, wrong, because these concepts are each other's complete, polar opposite: the solar phase is an affirmation of one's will to live, an affirmation of life itself, whereas Nirvana is a negation of one's will to live, a negation of life itself. In other words, it is instead an affirmation of one's desire to die, an affirmation of death, so that one may live forever in Heaven. But let us not kid ourselves here: the reason why these self-proclaimed "pneumatics" believe in any of this to begin with, and the reason for why anyone believes in an afterlife at all, is because they want to feel special, they want to, in some way or another, regardless of how far-fetched it may seem under any form of scrutiny, feel powerful, as a means to compensate, since they do not consider themselves as such. Why else would they proclaim themselves to be pneumatics (the highest spiritual caste) without having achieved anything at all, let alone of actual, tangible value? In truth, they are not special, but are instead worth equally as much as the hylics they so despise. Perhaps the hylics are worth more, since they at least do not, generally speaking, lie through their teeth during their every waking hour. Furthermore, do we dare to be as presumptuous as to assume that they are, in actuality, not seekers or truth but actively avoid the truth instead? Using their esoteric knowledge about the occult to shield against the cold, grim reality of life, they instead choose to avoid truth, because they are weak.
There are many different schools of thought pertaining to the topic spirituality. Can we just take a moment to appreciate truly just how hollow this word really is? What does it mean, spirituality? Nothing. Nevertheless, what Christianity, Platonism, Yoga, and that slimey weasel, Evola himself, all have in common is their belief that good stems from reason, consciousness, and what is typically called the "higher realm" (because the higher you rank, the better you are), whereas evil stems from emotion, unconsciousness, and what is typically agreed upon to be this very corporeal reality, in other words, nature itself. This is, of course, a very beautifully constructed glass palace, it has a very high quality touch, indeed... That is, of course, before Faust decided to return. You see, what refuted this delusion was science itself, or as it was once referred to, "natural philosophy." Has the reader not heard of Dmitrij Mendelejev? He was the creator of the periodic table. Problem was, he had great difficulties assembling it during his waking hours. It was only during sleep that the answer was revealed to him in a dream. Although it can be argued this was simply a consequence of the brain repeating the information 20 times over, as the brain does during sleep (do not cram the night before a test, kids!), it would be rather disingenuous to suppose that the unconscious mind does not, at the very least, serve a purpose if this was the case. Furthermore, to provide another example, the benzene hexagon was revealed to Friedrich Kekulé neither when he was fully awake nor when he was asleep, but when he was daydreaming, or, to be more precise, when he was in a "lesser" state of consciousness. In other words, it was not revealed, as Evola would have liked, when he was in a heightened state of consciousness but a dampened one instead. Not to mention it revealed itself in the shape of a snake eating its own tail, which, of course, is an archetype, Ouroboros; something "spiritual," something that should originate from the "higher realm," did, in fact, originate from its antithesis, the unconscious.
So, if the moralities of these systems were not designed for the purpose of accurately portraying reality ("objectivity," the supposed nature of them, even!), what, then, were their actual purpose? To condition human behaviour in-order to uphold the status quo. They worship reason because it allows the individual to think about how the consequences of his actions will affect society, but more importantly, himself. For example, the reason (how I have begun to loath that word!) Aristotle considered action, inter alia, to be virtuous (this word, too, tilts me to no end!) only when it has fulfilled the criteria of his golden mean was because this balance kept the people docile. To understand this a bit more, let us turn our gaze to Liberalism and its concept of the "social contract." What do these ideas suppose? The idea that every individual in society is granted the freedom to pursue his own desires whilst also limiting that freedom so that it may not grant the individual the freedom to infringe upon another's freedom. Does this description not sound familiar to the reader? It should, because it is the golden mean! Although this paragraph is already rather chaotic, I shall like to further deny the golden mean and branch out even further! Let us now discuss the very exciting topic that is etymology. I know, I can barely contain myself as well. Has it ever crossed the reader's mind that "reasonable" is a rather peculiar word? It is synonymous with "moderation" (moder, in Swedish, means "mother"). "Everything in moderation" is the golden mean, is it not? To use another example, from my native tongue this time, "lagom" is a word that has, for whatever unbeknownst reason, falsely been claimed to be rather difficult to translate. However, it simply means moderation, or, I suppose, a more accurate translation of it would be "a reasonable amount for me." Interesting, is it not? It appears as if though reasonable has less to do with logic and more so with logistics (see what I did there?), or, to be more precise, rationing. Rationing is a very rational way to allocate resources when they are sparse, is it not? After all, it is a very reasonable proposition that every individual should be granted a certain amount of something to fulfill their needs without jeopardising another from fulfilling their needs. The word "lagom" is interesting in-of-itself. "Lag," in Swedish, means "law," whereas "om" roughly means "about." Thus, it is entirely possible to claim that there is a "lag om" something, that there is a law about the matter. In other words, the purpose of philosophy and religion is to organise the individuals within society so that said society does not disrupt into anarchy, which is achieved by enacting "laws," spiritual or otherwise. For the record, although I would hope the more intelligent reader to already understand this, but to be perfectly clear on the matter, what I am attempting to do is neither to refute nor critique the validity of these ideas, i.e., whether the golden mean is true or not. This I am not interested in the slightest, except for when it pertains to Traditionalism (they shall know my wrath!). What I hope to achieve with this is to illustrate that philosophy has primarily not been the study of existence but the study of how to maintain society. Hopefully, it shall become more obvious to the reader as he continues to read why maintaining peace in society as the highest good of said society will inevitably lead the the death of it.
Moreover, the only qualitative difference between Heaven's Gate and the Piscean, eschatological, world religions is that whereas participation was voluntary for one, refusal to acknowledge the ridiculous and baseless lies perpetrated by the other used to be, and still is in many nations, a crime punishable with death. Because as soon as even a single individual begins to question their unsubstantiated dogma, they fall apart like a house of cards, since the existence of their God, which does not exist, the validity of their heavily edited and mistranslated rip-off of previous philosophies, which was written not by God but by man, and the existence of an afterlife, in which one is judged according to whether or not one was gullible enough to believe such preposterous lies, without even a shred of evidence to verify even a fraction of their claims, is entirely dependent on nothing but pure faith. The decline of European culture occurred when the morality of European man, who used to worshipped his instincts and thus by virtue life itself due to his instincts being a manifestation of his will to live, was perverted by the neuroticism of the semitic cancer to accept the Piscean morality, which came to be present in all world religions, causing him to vilify the corporeal world, his instincts, and thus life itself, whilst, at the same time, exalting the hinterwelt as inherently good by virtue of it not being life but death instead. Thus, I shall like to pose the following question: if the longer man is alive, the higher is the risk he should sin and be doomed to be tormented in hell for all eternity, why should man not simply commit suicide as early in his life as possible? Why should man even bother to reproduce if his offspring is to be born into a supposedly hellish world ruled by the devil himself (is Gnosticism not Christianity taken to its logical conclusion?), only to suffer unnecessarily? I sure do wonder why suicide so conveniently happens to be a sin. Could it be the only thing preventing Christianity from degenerating into its true form as a delusional, foreign, semitic death cult, like it used to be during its inception? Moreover, the only reason Christians prefer to have faith in the existence of an afterlife is because they would be able to live a better and longer life in heaven, to "become as Gods." However, should one question the existence of heaven, and should this inquiry prove there is no such delusion, no one would have any reason to believe such a lie, would they? Because man desires not to die but to live, even these death cultists.
Across all the world religions, apart from their blind belief in an afterlife, there is also a peculiar veneration of the priestly caste, which is an inversion of everything it means to be human. How strange that the group of people who promote a certain idea are, at least within the confines of that idea, to be respected and honoured simply because they possess a certain truth. For example, in Hinduism, one is considered to have lived a good life in one's previous life if one is reincarnated into a position where one has the privilege to study, since, it is thought, knowledge concerning how one should live one's life will lead to one not sinning due to possessing knowledge about good and evil. Indeed, their so-called "truth" is so far removed from reality that one ought to wonder whether man would have ever even considered such a possibility had he not been indoctrinated with such lies. Because, and let us truly think about this for a second, should good and evil not be something instinctual, something self-evident? For how could it not be? How can truth not be something self-evident? Does the reader truly suppose that a wolf, for man is no less an animal than a wolf, would ever find himself in need of having read, for example, all of philosophy in-order for him to be able to hunt, to live? And does the reader truly suppose we, humans, are any different from that wolf? We evolved from the same origin, did we not? Why is man considered special, unique, distinct from all other species? Is it because of his dear intellect? Indeed, man is a rather special animal because he is the only animal to primarily rely upon his intellect rather than his instincts. Because of this, he has conquered Earth, but at the cost of his instincts. He has forgotten what he truly is: an animal. And for that, he is now faced with having to pay a hefty price for his hybris.
But to return to the topic of Traditionalism, it is said that the Southern hemisphere is associated with Eros, which is the metaphysical force that unites the individual objects of an aggregate into the encompassing unity of a collective through a shared trait, whereas the Northern hemisphere is associated with Logos, which is the metaphysical force that distinguishes one individual object from another by highlighting their differences, as opposed to the definition as proposed by Traditionalism, as refuted in the opening paragraph. But even assuming Evola's definition of Logos and Eros was correct, why is both the North and South pole covered with ice, whilst the equator is a more accurate representation of the Sun? Should their differences not become more distinct the further they are from each other? Indeed, this is because distilled Logos is qualitatively the same as distilled Eros, because value judgements that distinguishes individual objects from each other are only possible to determine if there is a metric by which judgement is based upon. Hence, the iron age, the winter, occurs when these two principles have been polarised from each other to such a degree that they exist independent of each other, whereas the golden age, the equator, occurs when they exist in symbiosis and harmony with each other. Ergo, distilled Logos and distilled Eros are therefore nihilism because nihilism is the absence of the possibility to determine value judgements since everything is devoid of value. Nihilism is therefore death, since life is the will to ascertain a higher value, as everything that is considered attractive, beautiful, or desired is merely a representation of the will that drove such a creation to blossom, whereas death is the negation of life, because death is the negation of the desire to survive, to adapt, to evolve, to overcome obstacles, to grow, to ascertain a higher value based on one's ability to survive, it is the negation of everything that leads to the creation of value. Thus, nihilism is the ultimate manifestation of evil, since it denies life, as it is the belief in the absence of value, meaning, truth, and morality, which are all derived from Logos but are only accessible through Eros, human connection, "compassion."
Indeed, the Christian notion that everyone is equal before God is nothing more than nihilism, as is the notion of universal love, that love is the answer, that God is love, and that evil, which is conceptualised as an act that inflicts suffering upon another, is something which can be judged on an objective, universal scale. Let us be as clear as is possible, for it is here we shall arrive at the crux of the matter as to why Christianity has been and still continues to be a devastating poison on the European psyche: morality is not objective and thus cannot be judged objectively; every time when there is a conflict of interest or a disagreement of sort, there has never been a single individual who has ever not regarded their own actions and alignment on the matter to be the objectively correct stance, because the only actual person who someone will ever care about is themself, their interests, and their own welfare, not someone else, regardless of whether they could be considered, from an impartial perspective, to be in the wrong, because what all individuals desire the most is to survive, which is the same as to win. Moreover, the reader who has been paying attention might have asked himself, "But did you not earlier define good and evil objectively?" Indeed, I did. Although, in contrast to the Christian morality focusing on whether the action in-of-itself is morally correct on a universal scale, regardless of the outcome, my definition focuses on whether the outcome is life affirming (good) or life denying (evil), regardless of the actions undertaken, since they are not of any real importance, because for one to succeed, someone else necessarily must fail, since not everyone can be a winner. Furthermore, as for the ever-elusive nature of compassion, before which many have fallen to their knees to worship, whilst some have rejected its existence as a form of contrarianism due to their distaste of the absolute lack of self-respect of the former, it is simply the expansion of an individual's personal desire to survive unto a larger collective of like-minded or similar people to oneself, so that the collective's desire to survive becomes the individual's desire to survive as well. Ergo, action is only considered immoral because it causes entropy within the group, whereas action is only considered moral because it prevents entropy from emerging within the group, which subsequently would have led to the death of the group and thus its individual members.
The conceptualisation of God (the embodiment of good as such) as the embodiment of the eschatological, utopian end result, from which everything alien to man has been derived, such as "everything resolves itself in the end" (apparently, by itself, without any form of effort), the concept of the "rapture," and the ever-so mocked notion that the "good guys always win in the end" (is entropy your idea of "good?"), is precisely why Christianity cannot and will never be able to resolve its internal logic error, lest it be abandoned, for then man will no longer have to torture himself with the unnecessary conundrum. Christianity wants to have its cake and eat it, too; it is a death cult that desperately wants to appeal to us who worship life. This is blatantly obvious with the crucifixion of Christ. Although the crucifixion is obviously a retelling of the archetypal phoenix that dies and is then reborn from its ashes, the notion of a literal "rebirth" with the presence of the resurrection was a poor decision by the writers, due to the fact that it is an impossibility. The reason for this is because it directly contradicts another passage in the Bible: "the kingdom of God is within you." In other words, not in heaven but in this life. Is the problem apparent yet? Should the rebirth of Christ having instead been a change in his character, so that the old him would have metaphorically "died" only for a more complete character to be "born" in its place, then I would have no problem with the story. But because access to the kingdom of God is only granted to Christ after his death, there is simply no way to salvage it. Furthermore, the concepts of salvation and original sin are other examples of poor storytelling. The notion that man was born flawed and has an internal duty to himself to overcome this flaw in-order to ascertain salvation is not a far-fetched idea, were it not for the fact that the kingdom of God, which salvation grants access to, has already been established to not be of this world by the previous example. So, what is it? Is the kingdom of God of this world or another? You cannot have both, as you would then value life the same as death since there would be no qualitive difference between the two, which would be nihilism. Of course, let us hypothetically assume Christianity was somehow able to resolve its internal logic error, we would nevertheless be left with dealing with the problem of the ever-so cherished and exhaled Christian morality, since it also contradicts Christianity being pro-life in any capacity whatsoever.
As already established, Christianity conceptualises evil as the infliction of pain and suffering upon another, whereas good is conceptualised as the relief of pain and suffering from another by use of compassion in the form of charity, since Christianity is the expansion of an individual's desire for survival unto the entirety of mankind due to everyone being equal before God. Christianity should therefore be regarded as fundamentally incompatible with the proper Right, because, despite how far fetch it may sound to the reader, its morality is the sole reason why Liberalism, Democracy, Socialism, Hedonism, Utilitarianism, inter alia, were accepted as secular gospel instead of having been censored, persecuted, and mocked as delusional, because what all these doctrines share in common is the belief that everything beautiful should be sacrificed for the sake of relieving suffering and granting happiness to as many people as possible, which cannot be argued against from a Christian perspective since that is precisely what Christianity preaches as well. But what these proto-Bolshevists were too naïve to even begin to realise is that evil is, in fact, the cowardness, the weakness, the inability to not persist in spite of the suffering, whereas good is the courage, the strength, the ability to persist in spite of the suffering, instead of seeking some kind of anaesthesia to relieve oneself from the pain (perhaps with the label "Christianity" attached to it), as a form of escapism. And the most hilarious part of all this is that everyone already knows this far too intimately! Is it not considered "bad" to procrastinate, to stagnate, to degenerate, to remain a "manchild," to never grow up, to avoid suffering in-favour of indulging in whatever it may be that makes one feel good for but a brief moment? Jung understood this to a certain extent, but he was nevertheless unable to abandon the moral framework and therefore regarded the shadow as evil. Why should one then integrate this evil component? What good is there to that? Why should one unify good and evil? Is good not something that is to be desired, whereas evil is something that is to be avoided? Frankly, the fact that this is the culmination of Europe's allegedly most brilliant minds through the ages is absolutely embarrassing. The only answer that is in any way logical is that the unification of "good" and "evil" is good, whereas the polarisation of "good" and "evil" is evil. Why is man not allowed to possess a morality that accurately reflects the human condition? What are they so afraid of? Let us find out, shall we?
There appears to exist a sort of gravitation amongst people, particularly amongst the more impressionable and idealistic, the youth, and the general populace, towards authority figures, the physical embodiment of the Logos of a culture, whether it be a politician or a celebrity, they appear to desperately need an arbiter of truth and morality to follow, lest they degenerate. This is what is commonly known as "the iron law of nature." Whereas the authority figure is authentic, the populace is not, since they allow themselves to be subjugated by the Logos that the authority figure represents. What distinguishes the aristocracy, the noble, the great men, from the masses is their indifference towards the opinion and welfare of the masses, for they need not pay heed to the Logos of the social dynamics by virtue of being the one who determines that very Logos as they please. Additionally, there exists, of course, those men who neither belong to the aristocracy nor to the common man. These types of men, these "noble savages," these "Hyperboreans," although exceptionally rare, neither conform to social expectations, not because they are powerful enough to not have to bend to the will of others, since they are generally no more powerful than the common man, but simply because they embody their own Logos and thus find it unsuitable for themselves to care for another Logos than their own. In popular culture, these types of men are referred to as "sigma males," with its most common representation being Patrick Bateman. Is the reader not amused by the blatant hypocrisy at full display? Allegedly, these "sigma males," who believe themselves to embody their own Logos, embody instead the Logos of another, a fictional character of all things, who no less is as far away from being free from any social hierarchy as possible, considering the very obvious fact that in the movie, a very popular one at that (how sigma!), a classic even, Bateman constantly tries to fit in with the status quo, not escape from it. Moreover, the reason for why these lone wolves are perceived as attractive by women and respected by men is because they, too, similarly to the aristocrats, have the innate capacity to govern and rule, as these Hyperboreans are simply aristocrats without power, without a kingdom, without a fatherland, without anything to protect besides themself, without any form of chains to constrain them, for these men are truly free, very free, in fact, and authentic spirits; to be noble is to enjoy the privilege of being authentic, to be authentic is the privilege of being noble, and to be authentic is the privilege of being free from an external form of morality imposed upon oneself against one's own internal morality.
But the highest virtue of European culture is not authenticity because the contemporary aristocracy is not authentic, as they are instead inauthentic. Currently, there exists three types of aristocrats in contemporary society, each representing the worst aspects of the degeneration in their own respect: billionaires, celebrity idols, and the old, aristocratic bloodlines, the "true" aristocracy, whose power and influence came to be gutted following the advent of democracy, reducing their presence in modernity to nothing more than old relics of the past. What distinguishes democracy from aristocracy is their time preference. Elected public officials only serve for a very brief period of time, approximately four years or less, and are thus only concerned with fulfilling short-term promises, which is why the easiest means of amassing votes is simply by promising as much free stuff as possible as fast as possible, since they do not have to suffer the long-term consequences of such recklessness, regardless of whether even a fraction of such promises are fulfilled, due to the masses possessing the attention span of a goldfish, the memory of someone with severe dementia, and the curiosity of a puritan. In contrast, an aristocrat had to be concerned about the long-term future of their empire, since not only did they have to rule for their entire life, but they also had to make sure that the empire they bestowed to their successor was healthy, which is the reason why aristocracy means the "rule of the best," as opposed to our current "aristocracy." Whilst there was a qualitative difference in the character of the common man and the noble man of yesterday, there is no difference between the common man and the incredibly wealthy man in contemporary society. In ancient Rome, for example, one was not considered a real man, a "vir," unless one had emerged victorious from battle, which would certainly have required a particular type of character since ancient warfare was considerably less cowardly than the likes of modern warfare. Thereby, one was granted special privileges, such as the right to vote, because one had displayed proper evidence that one embodied the sort of character necessary to govern society. The European aristocracy of the past were the descendants of similar types of courageous warriors. In other words, there was a legitimate reason why the aristocracy ruled society: they were morally superior people because they represented a lifestyle that promoted the affirmation of life through the overcoming of obstacles, which thus warded off entropy or degeneracy, as it is usually referred to as nowadays. The wealthy man of today, however, is not any different in his character from the common man, as they are both utterly despicable parasites on everything that has managed to remain healthy and sane in spite of them.
The term "champagne Socialist" often times appear paradoxical to the uninitiated, but the truth of the matter is that it is not paradoxical in the slightest. After all, Socialism is nothing more than the most civilised and efficient means of allocating resources to the most amount of people. It is for this reason that the most civilised people in society, the bourgeoisie, would support such an ideology, regardless of the fact that they would gain no monetary compensation for doing so but would, in fact, only pay larger amounts of taxes, as they are the ones with the most capital. Moreover, it is for the same reason the cities, the central hubs of civilisation, typically attract Left-leaning individuals, whereas the countryside serves as a refuge for those who lean Right. Civilisation is by its very nature Left-wing. It is the motherly delusion that all kids should all get along and play nice with each other instead of fighting. The countryside, on the contrary, is by its very nature Right-wing due to such a lifestyle being an authentic reflection of reality instead of an artificial and inauthentic imposition on nature by man. No clearer distinction between the two can be accurately displayed than between the different types of housing available. On the countryside, everyone lives in a house, with many living on farms or other suchlike ranch-style houses, far away from people and civilisation. In the cities, the vast majority rent an apartment. They do not even own their own home. They have only been allowed to temporarily reside there, in their apartment, which is merely a single fraction of a whole complex of other apartments. In other words, to use an old saying, the Left is a herd of sheep, whereas the Right is the wolf. The Right does not depend on anyone but themselves to secure their own survival, whereas the Left does. The Left is entirely dependent on the complete and unwavering cooperation of the individual members of the herd in-order to survive. It is important to understand that each form of morality both has its advantages and drawbacks. No one is superior to the other. If the reader has a natural inclination to one, it is simply the result of his own personality. After all, it does not matter the means of ascertaining survival. The only thing that matters is to survive.
Industrial society, as it exists today, is far too dependent on far too many intricacies for it not to be severely detrimental to man's psyche. Although society is unlikely to ever collapse, the existence of this possibly, even unconsciously, is the source of the female neuroticism exhibited by modern man and his strange endeavours, as he is afraid of the possibility of entropy disrupting the artificial peace of modern society and therefore seeks to neuter anything that does not conform to the norms of society, since it is perceived as a form of danger due to its novelty being perceived as unpredictable, which is the reason for various emasculations of the individual in-favour of national security. It is for this reason that free speech does not actually exist in modern society, nor can it actually exist for that matter, since one is not free from the social consequence of such speech, as it does not matter what is actually said as long as it is perceived as socially acceptable by the vast majority of the population, because free speech does not mean the ability to freely express any form of opinion without censorship, as one will naturally censor one's own opinion so that it becomes socially acceptable before one could even dare to say it out loud, but rather the "freedom" to confirm to the neurotic masses that one does indeed conform to the norms of society. How could capitalists not exploit this phenomenon? Similarly to how the mass media curates public opinion in-order to satisfy their shareholders' demands, companies also use marketing to curate consumers' perception of what is considered popular in-order to artificially create consensus, due to the prevalence of a certain product being exposed to a consumer increasing its familiarity and thus the perception that it is normative, which companies profit immensely from by adding the logo of the company to their clothing and calling it "branded clothing," as the consumer has then been branded by the norms of society as proof of their loyalty to the herd. Furthermore, due to increased demand in industrial society for a larger share of the workforce to be highly educated, the admittance rate to university has increased exponentially to such a degree that virtually everyone in Europe is expected to attend university, as it is perceived as the norm, regardless of the field one decides to major in. But how can higher education, which should really only be a privilege for the few, be an option for the many? What do most people even do in university? Party? As per usual, it is nothing more than a humiliation ritual. Remember gymnasium? Remember how all your teachers constantly pestered you to attend university and how marvellous it would be? And then you arrive there, and no one, teachers and students alike, are actually intelligent. The only thing you will ever find there amongst the so-called "intellectual elite" is smugness, because they are truly awful and detestable people who should never have been allowed to step foot there in the first place. Indeed, the only thing you will ever find today is smugness. You will only find people who look down on others, never anyone who looks up.
There are two kinds of people in this world. The former kind, to which the vast majority of population belong, is what might be commonly referred to as the sore and resentful loser. When this type of person sees someone more successful than himself, more beautiful than himself, someone whom he would rather be, it does not even cross his mind for even a fraction of a second that he should inspire to become a more complete person, so as to become closer to such an ideal. Instead, what he does is that he seeks to destroy him, to bring him down to his level, so that he no longer poses a threat to him physically as well as emotionally. However, when the latter type, to which we, Hyperboreans, belong, see someone more successful than ourselves, more beautiful than ourselves, someone whom we would not rather want to be but rather someone whom we would like to one day surpass, not by depreciating their value but by appreciating our own value, we do not resent them, we respect them. The existence of the former type, despite what idealists may want us to believe, is the reason why nothing lasts forever, since everything will eventually degenerate due to entropy, due to a lack of respect for the act of creation, because envy cannot and will never disappear, as it is an integral part of the human condition. Although, this does not mean to imply that one should simply not kill one's enemies if granted the opportunity. Should one's enemies be stronger than oneself or simply pose a threat in general, the most logical course of action for the sake of one's own survival would be to eliminate such a threat, regardless of whether they are more beautiful than oneself or not, because it is then not a matter of healthy competition but instead a question of survival. Hence, the reason for the development of resentment is due to the emergence of a vast chasm between the lower and upper class, creating two different groups who compete with each for survival, since the upper class, which ideally should guide the lower class, has degenerated and is therefore no longer respected but resented for its parasitic behaviour instead; it is regarded as an enemy that is an active burden on the common man and his survival instead of as an indispensable pillar of support.
The reader should most certainly have come to understand by now that everything is fundamentally rooted in evolution. However, contrary to what is commonly believed about evolution, it really does not matter whether one wins at the game of life by becoming the apex predator, since the only thing that matters is simply that one does not lose by ending up dead last. Because of this, as long as one does not completely fail in life, it really does not matter to what extent one succeeds, since one has effectively won at the game of life so long as one is able to pass on one's genes. Although this may appear contradictory to the maxim "survival of the fittest," when we actually observe the behaviour of most animals and compare it to humans, we find that all species prefer to conserve energy rather than to spend it, which is obviously because unnecessary, excess use of energy is an evolutionary bad strategy, since it is a waste of resources. This is the state we find most people in. But then there exists this particular type of man, the Hyperborean, this very peculiar type of man possesses a very poor evolutionary strategy, which is the aforementioned excess expression of energy, not because there is any rational reason for him to do so, since all his sensual desires have already been met, but because he feels the need to do so. He is unable to relax. It simply is not a part of his nature! Relaxation, for him, is boring. He despises boredom more than anything. He desires, above all else, to always be able to immerse himself with whatever happens to have interested him. And no one else but him! For how could he care for the unexotic, the unadventurous, the disinteresting, the boring, when the only thing he desires is adventure for the sake of adventure? He does not care for the end result, the goal, at the end of his adventure, because that is not what grants him his happiness. The only thing that makes him happy is when he finds himself during a process of creation. It is there he finds himself at home. He might desire to finish something, but when he has finished it, there is no happiness there to be found, only boredom, even though he was sure of it, because he does not belong in the warm, comfortable womb that is the equator but rather amongst the northern mountains, with no rational purpose for wandering there besides a desire from somewhere deep within in him, from the very essence of his being, to not be comfortable with simply being mediocre. He feels that he must prove to himself, with no one else acting as his judge (for why do they care?), that he is able to overcome himself, time and time again.
Although evolution is generally accepted, with its only opposition consisting of people who only oppose it in-order to justify the inomnipotence of their God, it is nevertheless not understood properly, since it is thought to continue infinitely. But much like man is born and destined to die, so, too, is the universe destined to die, due to the fact that all life follows the same metaphysical pattern of a rise followed by a subsequent fall. Does it not speak volume, concerning the value of philosophy, when Steve from Microsoft tech-support, who documents the rise and fall of various YouTubers, has a much richer understanding of life compared to most, if not all save a select few, philosophers? It is rather naïve to suppose that philosophy is an activity reserved only for intellectual, objective, and rational people when it is, in fact, the purest form of tribalism, due to its Eros having been derived from reason rather than emotion, which is most likely the reason why it is commonly mistaken for being "rational" when anyone who has ever been unfortunate enough to witness a debate of any kind can attest to it having been anything but. Indeed, the only reason why philosophers are respected in any regard is because they are perceived as authority figures. Should, for example, Steve have written a book centuries ago and been captured in a monochrome photograph, then even he would rank amongst these so-called "giants." If this is not a textbook example of father issues, then I frankly do not know what is. Because, who becomes interested in philosophy in the first place? Men without father figures. But I digress. Moreover, what I have as of yet omitted to describe is the silver age, the transitional phase between the solar phase (golden age) and the lunar phase (bronze age), which also happens to be the phase that is commonly mistaken for the golden age by the Traditionalists, regardless of whether they would like to admit it or not. The silver age for the current platonic year began 12,000 years ago with the neolithic revolution, since that was the moment man departed from being a hunter-gatherer to having adopted a lifestyle and morality more suitable for civilisation. Indeed, the origin of herd morality began at the dawn of civilisation, because survival was suddenly not dependent on whether man was courageous enough to face danger head-on but came to instead depend on the social cohesion and overall security of the village, as food and shelter was readily available without the need for either war with other tribes or hunting for food due to farming. This was also the period when the degenerate practise of worshipping fertility Goddesses came into being, which was not necessarily caused solely by agriculture, but in part influenced by the fact that herd morality reflects woman's morality. Perhaps the reason why all religions are fundamentally rooted in herd morality is because they came to emerge during the silver age and onward. It will never cease to amuse me how ridiculous Traditionalism truly is. For how can they claim to be "Traditionalists" when all their beliefs are derived from doctrines that were created after the solar phase? Perhaps the reason Traditionalism is so blind to the necessity for a rise is because their dear Hinduism was created after it, in the comfort of it, which is the reason why the Hindu conceptualisation of the golden age is akin to a Socialist utopia. I hope the reader now understands how lost they truly are. But let us not dwell on them any longer. What overall characterises the silver age is Imperialism: the amalgamation of smaller tribes and cultures into a singular unit. During the neolithic revolution, it was the shift from an authentic type of morality to an inauthentic one due to the need for security. During ancient history, it was the shift from isolationism to expansionism and the consequent development of language due to the need for a universal means of communication as a result of the former.
The silver age began to transition into the bronze age at the beginning of the Aion of Pisces with the birth of Jesus Christ and was finalised the year the Roman Empire fell. The transition into the Aion of Pisces was the moment when the syzygy comprised of Logos and Eros began to polarise. Thus, the decline of European culture had begun to ensue. This was caused by the universalist nature of Christianity, which would subsequently pave the way for Liberalism, since Christianity, by its very nature, does not concern itself with the corporeal, due to its focus exclusively having been set on Logos, as understood by its more classical definition, the "hinterwelt." Anyone, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or social status, is eligible to convert to Christianity so long as they accept the Logos. There is no "border," which is why it is not compatible with National-Socialism or any other form of actual Ring-wing ideology. The exact same mode of categorisation is also to be found in Liberalism and Marxism, with everyone merely being an "individual" in the case of the former or a "comrade" in the case of the latter. Not to mention feminism abolishing any form of hierarchical difference between men and women, and democracy granting everyone an equal vote simply by turning the required age, as if the average 18-year-old even understands nor should concern himself with politics so early in his life. Furthermore, it is an undeniable fact that post-modernism is the most evil, nihilistic, and entropic philosophy ever construed, apart from anarchism and nihilism, due to the fact that it seeks to remove all binaries so that every object is simply a distilled unit with no reference to another. Not to mention the concept of deconstruction, which is simply a fancier word for destruction, and ought thus to be called what it truly is: entropy. In modern times, the internet has connected the entire globe to a shared forum, which has, to say the least, been an unprecedented disaster. Additionally, the advent of AI exponentially worsened the damage caused by photoshop with deepfakes and other suchlike image distorters and image generators, as no one is able to believe either video or photographic evidence at face value any longer, thereby plunging the internet further down the road of nihilism. It is possibly not an exaggeration to suppose that the conspiracy theorists were right. In the future, it will be mandatory to have a microchip implanted under the skin, which would allow the government to track the precise location of every person as well as to read their minds, not to mention that everyone's brain would be connected to the internet without any boundaries. And that is how both mankind and the Aion of Aquarius will end, with mankind devolving into a hivemind. In the end, although many would like to disagree, Marx was indeed right, but not in the way he had anticipated: the Socialist utopia as well as the Christian kingdom of God is not found in life but in death.