There is no greater misunderstanding in philosophy than the functions of the two principles of Logos and Eros. Evola refers to Logos as "Tradition" and Eros as "Anti-Tradition." Tradition can be thought of as a set of universal and timeless laws of reality. Anti-Tradition can be thought of as corporeal reality itself. According to Evola, the more in tune corporeal reality (Anti-Tradition) is with the universal laws of Tradition, the better, whereas the less in tune with these laws, the worse. To make matters more concrete, think of Anti-Tradition as how you would behave, and Tradition as how you should behave. If you align yourself with Tradition and behave like you should, then you will be better off. For example, if you study hard in school, like you should, and go to a good university, then you will get a well paying job. However, if you do not behave as you should and only as you would if no one pressured you, then you would probably spend all your time playing video games and fail school. The only problem is that the Solar Phase, which Evola categorises as "Traditional," is not strictly the result of Logos but is instead the result of the unification of both Logos and Eros, and that the Lunar Phase, which is "Anti-Traditional," is the result of the polarisation of Logos and Eros. Surprisingly, Evola actually does 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 defined by the existence of an already prospering Traditional society, it is not to be defined by the end result of a previous struggle but rather by the spirit that invigorated the people to create such a society in the first place. That is to say, the misconception Traditionalists make is to conflate the Solar Phase with the Sun, as the Solar Phase is not the Sun. Rather, it is period during which the Sun is being created. In other words, the Solar Phase is the entire Alchemical process, whereas the Sun is, shockingly, the Sun, which is produced as a result of it, after it has ended. The Sun, on the other hand, is a transitional period during the Solar Phase and Lunar Phase called the "Silver Age." Once the Silver Age stops being rooted in Tradition, departing from the Solar Phase to the Lunar Phase, and instead revolts against it by engaging in degenerate behaviour, the Bronze Age begins. At end of the cycle, when the Eros has exhausted itself after having usurped power from the Logos sublimating it, when everything implodes upon itself, the Iron Age starts and abruptly ends, for it is both during the Iron Age where one cycle ends and another begins, as each cycle both begins and ends with the Iron Age. After all, what season does the year both begin and end with? Winter. However, it is not only the Traditionalists who do not recognise this very obvious fact. When comparing all doctrines' respective "processes" for creating the Sun, none of them seem willing to recognise the fact that they have left out the part where the Sun disintegrates following its creation. Then again, that would, then, not give credence to their myth about immorality should one succeeded.
What therefore fundamentally differentiates the Solar Phase from the Lunar Phase is that the Solar Phase is characterised by an authentic, organic expression of creativity, whereas the Lunar Phase is characterised by an inauthentic, robotic adherence to dogma, customs, and various other suchlike historical artefacts, for no other reason than mere social conformity, as the meaning and utility behind such 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, or hope to revive the rotting corpse that was once their culture.
There are many different schools of thought pertaining to the topic spirituality. Different they may seem, all of them share the 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 has been typically agreed upon to be this very corporeal reality, in other words, nature itself. Ironically enough, what refuted this delusion was science itself, or, as it was once referred to, "natural philosophy." For example, Dmitrij Mendelejev, the creator of the periodic table, had great difficulties assembling it during his waking hours, and the only reason he managed to complete it was because the solution 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, provided this to be true. 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 is an archetype, Ouroboros; something "spiritual," something that should have originated from the "higher realm," originated from its antithesis, the unconscious.
This, of course, begs the question: 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 Aristotle considered action, inter alia, to be virtuous only when it has fulfilled the criteria of his golden mean was because this balance kept the people docile. To better understand this, it will be necessary to explain the concept of the "social contract," which is 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. Moreover, 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 reasonable has less to do with logic and more so to do with logistics, 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 only a certain amount of something to fulfill their needs without jeopardising another from fulfilling their needs. On a different note, enlightenment is similar in how it encourages others to not feel the need to continuously have a greater piece of the pie, and thereby jeopardise another from being able to fulfill their needs, but to instead be content with needing as little as possible, as the ultimate goal of it, nirvana, is to be be content with simply existing in the moment without desire. Similarly, most religions encourage fasting, because it significantly reduces the amount of resources you consume, leading to more resources being able to be allocated to more people, and charity, because it allocates resources from those who have more than what they need to fulfill their needs to those who are not able to fulfill their needs. Also, the word "lagom" is rather 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, which are not ordained by any form of transcendent power but are instead wholly arbitrary. 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.
If one were to compare what the ultimate reward found in all religions and doctrines for following their dogma and achieving their respective nirvana is, one would find that they all promise one immortality. Whilst there might appear to be a difference between Western and Eastern thought, they are fundamentally the same. In the West, it is believed that once you die you are to be judged depending on whether you have lived a good or evil life. If you have lived a good life, you go to heaven, but if you have instead lived an evil life, you go to hell. On the other hand, in the East, you are also judged depending depending on whether you have lived a good or evil life once you die. If you have lived a good life, you are reincarnated as a human, but if you have instead lived an evil life, you are instead reincarnated as an animal. It is interesting to note that the more good you have done in life, the more likely you are to be reincarnated as more rational, intelligent, and capable of learning, as being reincarnated as a priest or teacher is sought after as they have the highest likelihood to escape samsara and achieve nirvana, whereas the more evil you have done in life, the more likely you are to reincarnated as more emotional, stupid, and incapable of learning, as being reincarnated as an animal or plant is feared as it will make it impossible to escape samsara and achieve nirvana. What is even more interesting to note is that the system is deterministic. If you are born into a position where you are capable of reason, you will be capable of doing good, whereas if you are born into a position where you are not capable of reason, you will not be capable of doing good, which means you will only be capable of doing evil. It truly is hilarious how anyone could ever fall for this. What they are essentially saying is, "if you do not do as I say, you will be reincarnated as a fly, but if you do what I say, you will be reincarnated into a better position in society." Remember: India has a caste system. You cannot advance upwards into society through merit (which is not to say that there is much of a difference between it and the West). You can only inherit positions by being born into them. Furthermore, why is it that you are rewarded with being more rational if you do good? Because, as previously explained, society benefits from more people acting more rationally. In other words, the entire concept of reincarnation, in addition to the Western variant of heaven and hell, is an attempt to fear monger people into acting less savagely and to instead encourage them to be more civil by dangling the carrot of immortality in front of them. This is why I find the Eastern variant more interesting than its Western counterpart. According to Western thought, once you die, you cannot start over or try again. If you lived a good life, you get to live forever in heaven, whereas if you lived an evil life, you get to instead burn in the hell forever. In other words, no matter what, you get eternal life. On the other hand, in Eastern thought, only those who manage to escape samsara are granted eternal life, whereas the rest are stuck in the eternal cycle of death and rebirth in samsara until they manage to achieve nirvana, immortality. The only question is why immortality? Why is that the ultimate reward one can receive? Because it is the manifestation of their ideal to maintain society forever but imparted to one individual at a time so that those individuals who have proven themselves to best maintain social cohesion can all enter into the Kingdom of God and maintain the peace of it for the rest of eternity.
Salvation implies that one is being saved from something that one does not want to associate with, or, at the very least, that one attains something greater than what one previously had. In Christianity, salvation grants access to the Kingdom of God, Heaven, after death, as can be observed when permittance to enter into the Kingdom of God is only granted to Christ after he has died, and revoked from him when he is resurrected, only for him to return to it when he dies again. The only problem is that this blatantly contradicts another passage, "The Kingdom of God is within you," which seems to suggest the idea that man was born flawed (original sin) and has an internal duty to himself to overcome this flaw in-order to ascertain salvation, were it not for the fact that the Kingdom of God, which salvation supposedly grants access to, has already been established to not be of this world by the previous example. Obviously, there is a contradiction here. If I had to guess, there is no afterlife, and that the crucifixion of Christ is merely a retelling of the archetypal phoenix that dies and is, then, reborn from its own ashes into something greater. The problem naturally arises when someone's interpretation differs from this. When observing how Christians treat getting accepted into Heaven, it seems many believe they can, somehow, fool God. For example, Pascal's wager seems to assume that God, who is supposedly omnipotent, would not be aware of the fact that a Christian, who is an Atheist at heart, is only pretending to be Christian to avoid going to hell. If I were God, this type of person would not go to Heaven, because he clearly does not believe from the bottom of his heart, from the goodness of his heart, free from all earthly desires, in the Holy Spirit. Speaking of the Holy Spirit, there are those who preach that all you have to do to go to Heaven is accept Jesus or the Holy Spirit into your life, which has spawned a number of jokes where someone who is clearly a great sinner professes their love for Christ before they die and are thus forgiven and go to Heaven. If it was not already obvious, this form of belief is too weak and cheap for me. It seem almost as if they treat obtaining and using their ticket to Heaven as something as nonchalantly and cheaply as using a coupon at the grocery store. They do not believe. They merely want to avoid hell, because they got fear mongered into believing it exists, as there is a non-zero percent risk that it does. As it would turn out, this is all that Christianity has been reduced to: a form of insurance to not go to hell. After all, is that not what the Vatican sold to people as a means of funding the restoration of St. Peter's Basilica? If so, would that not reveal that the only thing Christians seek to gain by being Christians is to go to heaven? It is simply an example of supply and demand. By creating hell (a place where you will burn for the rest of eternity if you sin), there is suddenly a demand not to go to hell, to which they sell their supply branded as "salvation."
A common trope in fiction is to have a good ending: the hero defeats the dragon, gets the girl, and they live together happily ever after, at least, until they die. But by ignoring this seemingly innocuous but very important fact of life, there have spawned a number of different delusions, all with the same idea that everything resolves itself in the end with enough time, or, to put it in different words, that the good guys always win in the end. However, this is not so. Problems do not go away by ignoring them and giving them enough time to sort themselves out. There are, of course, instances when this might be correct. However, for the vast majority of problems, nothing resolves itself with time unless you make an active attempt at fixing them but is nevertheless hindered by the fact that it will take a certain amount of time. The so-called good "ending" that is so often spoken about is in fact not the true ending of one's life, but is instead only the ending of the Golden Age, as that is where the Archetypal hero's journey indeed ends, with the creation of the Sun, and the departure into the Silver Age, where he is now free to enjoy the fruits of labour until his inevitable death. This is why everything that happens after marriage, after your children are born, after you have lost your freedom, is never romanticised, because that is not the "good ending." Instead, what is romanticised is the dating and the wedding, because that is the most exciting part of the entire process. In Christianity, this can be observed in a number of instances. For example, with the rapture and the afterlife promising eternal blissfulness for the true believers. In the East, there is the concept of karma, which states that you will be rewarded for your good deeds and punished for your evil ones. How people typically interpret this is that those who wrong you will be punished for their actions in the future, which means you should not take revenge but instead wait for time to judge their actions. The fundamental problem with karma is that it entirely relies on morality being objective. If there is no such thing as objectively good moral actions, then there is no way to reward them, and vice versa. Admittedly, there are cases where karma may seem to exist. However, even though they may seem to prove the existence of it, the typical mistake people tend to make it so assume their retribution came from nowhere, when it was instead a completely natural consequence of their own actions; their inevitable demise should not be in the least surprising but instead expected. For example, if you frequently swindle people, and get enough people riled up, at some point or another, someone will take matters into his own hands, hunt you down, and punish you for your wrong doings. Alternatively, the police will arrest you, as you are bound to make a mistake at some point. The point is that most whose "karma" catches up to them usually have a closet full of skeletons, and it should therefore not be surprising when those doors burst open because there are simply too many skeletons in there. It is not that these wrongdoers are punished for committing an objectively immoral deed. Rather, they are punished because high time preference behaviour that exploits other people is not tolerated in a society whose very basis is an attempt to prevent that. In other words, if there was no law, if there was no society, if there was no social milieu, they would not have received any punishment.
To briefly 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 equator, the Silver Age (or the Golden Age according to Evola's definition of the Sun) represents the two principles existing in harmony with each other, after having come into fruition as a result of a process of creation (the Golden Age). 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, as 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, and morality, which are all derived from Logos but are only accessible through Eros, human connection, "compassion." Or, should I say, this is what you should believe for now...
The problem with the existence of evil has long since been a much debated topic in Christianity for good reason. If God is supposed to be good in-of-itself, why did God create evil? If God is supposed to be omnipotent, why did God allow for the existence of evil? The only answer to this question from Christians is them repeating the question but in a demeaning manner. In other words, they have no answer. First of all, what is good and what is evil? Good is thought to be the alleviation of pain and suffering from another, whereas evil is thought to be the infliction of pain and suffering upon another. The problem is that this applies to all living things, because Christianity is universal (Catholic). If it is evil to inflict suffering upon another, how are we supposed to survive? After all, killing animals inflicts pain upon them, and even plants feel pain when being eating, which means that it is evil to eat, but if you do not eat, you will die. Thus, if no living being is allowed to eat, because that would mean that they have to kill another living being, it would imply the ultimate good of Christianity would be a collective form of suicide. Once again, the problem with this form of morality is that it is universal. If this morality had instead been limited to only a tribe or village, there would be no problem, as they would suddenly be morally justified to slaughter cattle for food and defend their homes from invaders. The only thing they would not be allowed to do would be to murder other members of that tribe, which is a good thing, since, if they did, that tribe would have gone extinct. That said, even if there is nothing that prohibits them from killing other living beings in-order to ascertain their own survival, there is also nothing that implies this is morally good. In the most plain of terms, good is whatever an individual is supposed to do, whereas evil is whatever an individual is not supposed to do. If their survival is dependent on slaughtering cattle and defending their homes from invaders by force, then doing these things have to be considered good. In fact, even if doing these things would be considered good, there is no reason to assume that they are good if the ultimate form of good does not stem from the idea that the survival of the tribe is good in-of-itself. In other words, good is whatever ensures the survival of the tribe, whereas evil is whatever leads to the extinction of the tribe.
As should be obvious, the fundamental problem with Christian morality is that it is thought that it can be judged on an objective, universal scale. However, this is not so, because morality is not objective and this 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 themselves, their interests, and their own welfare, not someone else's, because what all individuals desire the most is to survive, which is the same as to win. Moreover, in contrast to Christian morality focusing on whether the action in-of-itself is morally correct on a universal scale, regardless of the outcome, the definition provided above 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 for 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.
As such, once there no longer exists any external forces that threatens the survival of the group, their focus instead shifts from looking outside their walls to inside them, as entropy can suddenly only emerge from within. The problem with this assumption is that peace can never be maintained forever. Eventually, it will dissolve, either on its own or by external forces, as can be readily observed in Genesis, where Adam and Eve are banished from The Garden of Eden for eating from the fruit of Knowledge. This is because if all your needs are met, there is no reason to do anything, since if no one invents things, if nothing is created, if everything stagnates because everyone is perfectly comfortable with what they currently have and wished for nothing more, then things will eventually disintegrate, regardless of if the first generations were aware of the fact that in-order for something to not deteriorate, it must be actively maintained, because, eventually, future generations will simply assume everything will automatically be maintained by "society." So, if they do nothing to help with maintaining it, it should not have an effect, should it? The only problem is when this line of thinking is widespread, for if no one works, because they simply assumes someone else will work, then things will eventually deteriorate. This is the result of Christian morality. If evil is thought to be the infliction of suffering upon another, then it would be evil to force someone who does not want to work to work, and if good is thought to be the alleviation of pain and suffering from another, then it would in fact be a good deed to let that person not work as he would, then, not have to suffer. Furthermore, if good is the result of merely doing what is good and avoiding what is evil, then that person who does not want to work will see no reason to work, because, by avoiding working, by avoiding doing what he does not want to do, by avoiding doing something that inflicts pain and suffering upon him, he would do good.
This is why Jung's categorisation of the Shadow as evil is fundamentally flawed. If the Shadow is thought to be 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. To put it in more concrete terms, if the unification of the conscious and unconscious mind is thought to be good, then neither of these two components can be either good or evil. Rather, whether or not they are unified is what determines if they are good or evil. If they are unified, they are good. If they are not, they are evil. What this implies is that in-order to do a good deed, an "evil" one must also be committed. For example, in-order to build muscle, you need to damage the already existent muscle tissue, which causes the body to repair it in addition to adding more mass to it. Also, to build muscle in the first place, you need to eat protein, which is found in meat, which you can get by killing other animals. To provide another, more Archetypal example, in-order retrieve the sleeping princess and the pot of gold, you need to slay the dragon protecting them first. Doing so will put you in danger and might lead to your death, not to mention that the dragon will die when it is killed. If we were to analyse the Book of Job from such a perspective, it would suddenly make sense as to why God decided to rob Job of everything he held dear, because by doing so God reminded him that good is not the ability to maintain the peace of what has already been procured or built, but rather the ability to build anew from the ashes of what has been destroyed. After all, Satan, in Hebrew, means nothing more sinister than "adversity," which God wanted to find out if Job could overcome. Whenever I see a Christian argue for this perspective, I cannot help but wonder how stupid they truly are, for what they have essentially done is to forget the initial problem about their morality being universal, which would make this perspective evil, and instead attempt to make us believe that their morality is tribalistic, despite the fact that if you were to simply ask them if their morality is objective, they would respond with a firm, "yes!"
I have employed to term "Christian morality" for a while now. However, it should be wise to clarify that this type of morality is neither exclusive to Christianity nor was it created by it, for this particular type of morality can be found in numerous other cultures, having existed independently of Christianity. The reason why I have nevertheless chosen to use this term in particular, and why I put a greater emphasis on Christianity compared to any other religion, should not be shocking to anyone reading this in good faith, but, for those who are simply too disingenuous to even consider that possibility, it is because I live in a culture dominated by Christian influences, which means I am not only the most familiar with it compared to any other religion, it is also the religion I am most concerned with, as it is the religion of the people I wish to speak to the most, Europeans. But to get back on track, the common name for this morality is the "Golden Rule," which can be traced all the way back to ancient Egypt. Additionally, it can be found in other religious texts as well, like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. The maxim in question has therefore been expressed in a multitude of different ways, but the crux of it is that you should treat others as you would like others to treat you. If the reader remembers, this should remind him of an earlier paragraph where I dissected the Golden Mean and the Social Contract, as they, too, are merely the different expressions of the same idea. In the case of the Golden Rule, if we were to analyse it from the perspective of the Social Contract, the reason we should not treat others as we ourselves do not want to be treated is because that would infringe upon their freedom to fulfill their desires, and if they were to do the same thing to us, then we would not be able to fulfill our desires, as they have instead infringed upon our ability to do so. From this, it is possible to distil a clear definition of good and evil, and, to the surprise of no one, it is the definition I have provided a multitude of times now. If it is preferable for everyone to respect each other's wishes to fulfill their desires whilst also being able to fulfill one's own desires, this implies maintaining the ability to do so is perceived as morally good, whereas disrupting this equilibrium in any way is morally evil. From this, it is possible to distil it further. If it is morally good for people to be able to fulfill their desires without being infringed upon by others to prevent them from doing so, then it is morally good for people to not only maximise the pleasure they experience but to also not prevent others from maximising the please they experience, whereas doing anything to prevent this would be morally evil.
The most common conceptualisation of Christian morality by Christian theologians is that of "privatio boni," which translates to the absence or privation of good. According to them, to be good means to submit to the will of God, to be a sheep shepherded by Christ, be guided by the Holy Spirit, and, generally speaking, trusting God's plan. The absence of this, to instead revolt against the will of God like Lucifer did, to stray from the herd, to reject the Holy Spirit, and, generally speaking, to not put your trust into God is what is thought of as evil. In the most plain of terms, to be good is to be Christian, whereas to not be Christian is evil. In Aion, Jung adamantly tries to argue that this conception of evil is flawed. The reason for this is because evil is only thought of as the absence of good rather than an entity of its own. Basically, according to the privatio boni, there is only Christ or the rejection of Christ, but, for Jung, there should be Christ or the Anti-Christ. However, even though I do agree with Jung, I think his worries were unsubstantiated, as both then and now many Christians seem to be well aware of the existence of the Anti-Christ. How many public figures have not been accused of being the Anti-Christ? Off the top of my head, I can think of Mr. Beast, Trump, and Elon Musk, to name a few. In other words, in practise, everyone then and now know of the Anti-Christ. It was only in theory that this aspect was overlooked. Even so, the real reason why Jung was so adamant to convince his readers about the existence of evil is because both it and the very existence of the unconscious were unconscious to people, due to the former not having been recognised as a real entity, and the latter having been suppressed due to Europe having become too rational. However, once again, we return to the criticism outlined earlier that if not acknowledging the existence of the Anti-Christ is thought of as evil, would it not be more reasonable to suppose that refusing to acknowledge the Anti-Christ and the unconscious should be categorised as evil, whereas the willingness to acknowledge them should be categorised as good?
The concept of virtue (the ultimate expression of what is perceived as morally "good" and thus socially desirable as well as acceptable) is something that has falsely been deemed as good in-of-itself ever since the ancients. To use an analogy, man perceives water as good because it is essential to his survival. However, that does not mean water is good in-of-itself. The only reason both water and virtues are perceived as good is due to their utility as means for survival; the more efficient a tool or practise is for ascertaining survival, the more likely it is to be perceived as "good" or even "virtuous." Thus, the question naturally arises why these virtues were erected in the first place. The answer, as has been previously hinted to numerous time by now, is simply due to an attempt at preventing entropy from disrupting the artificial peace of the group, since parasites, who do not contribute but only deprive resources from the collective pool, are nothing but a burden on the continued survival of the group. To prevent this from happening, the idea of compassion being a virtue was greatly needed, and thus it was not long before it was christened a virtue by man. This is the true origin of all "virtues." They are nothing but social constructs, which were created as a consequence of social interaction, for the sole purpose of mediating social interaction in-order to maintain the artificial peace of the group. Ergo, altruism, compassion, kindness, empathy, sympathy, or whatever kind of synonym is used does not benefit the individual directly, it only benefits him indirectly.
Truly, why would compassion benefit the individual? Why would sharing money (the means of survival as per the rules of society) facilitate personal survival? But despite charity being counter-intuitive to personal survival, at least directly due to directly affecting how much money the individual has accrued, it nevertheless benefits his survival indirectly, due to being perceived by others as "compassionate" and thus morally "good," which is perceived as socially desirable. The reason why being perceived as compassionate by others is desirable is because it creates the perception of the individual as someone who is willing to maintain the artificial peace and continued existence of the group, which, as outlined in the preceding paragraph, is desirable to all parties who belong to a particular group, due to their survival being dependent on the survival of said group. Moreover, as for the practical utility of charity or suchlike forms of kindness, it would foolish to suppose that a group can manage to survive if its individual members are unable to cooperate due to illness or other suchlike unfavourable conditions, which are not derived from parasitism but weakness instead. Hence, the removal of these types of detriments to the overall productivity of the group is of utmost priority, which is what kindness in the form of welfare seeks to accomplish. Thus, the reason compassion is a virtue is simply because it is a desirable outcome for as many people as possible to cooperate in-order to maintain the longevity of their group, whereas the reason why parasites are socially ostracised is because they are perceived to have a net negative effect on the group as a whole. In other more harsh words, the only reason why you are kind to other people and why other people are kind to you is because neither you nor they wish to become socially ostracised, since that would be the death of the whoever would wind up as the outcast. Naturally, most people will fervently deny this because they are uncomfortable with the idea of their neighbour not harbouring compassion towards them out of the kindness of their heart, as that would mean their ever so precious artificial peace would be at risk of tumbling down, which is also the reason why Christians so desperately cling to the idea of morality being objective, despite it being very evident that it is not universal.
Supposing this line of thinking to be true, it should naturally extend to other types of virtues as well. Without detailing every virtue ever made, it will nevertheless be necessary to explain the actual meaning behind "honour" due to its nature having been particularly esoteric to virtually all. To put it simply, honour means the ability to recognise the true value of an individual as determined by his ability to survive. But due to it having been employed in a number of various situations, which often times appear as if they are independent of another, it will be necessary to analyse its application in more detail in three different scenarios. To begin with, fighting honourably means that neither fighter may utilise underhanded techniques and will instead rely on his skill alone, without the hope that fate would interfere or for certain conditions to be favourable. Thus, both fighters may, then, accurately gauge their skill, which is the reason why men in particular like the concept of honour as well as Truth™ and objectivity, since deceit is not favourable in the long-term, as the Truth™ always manages to surface eventually, especially during battle. Ergo, the reason why loyalty is a virtue men also like is due to it representing the truthful status of the relationship rather than an insincere façade, employed for the sake of personal gain with no intention of longevity, which is the reason why women travel more than men, as they do not care for either loyalty nor honour due to being biologically incapable of them. Furthermore, in contrast to men, women do not particularly care for the means of the deed so long as the outcome is favourable, much like nature, mother nature, if you will. Moreover, people typically honour, or, as it is used more colloquially, respect, those whose skill is higher (more useful for survival) then their own and thus naturally gravitate towards them due to them having displayed greater success at survival, as their guidance, wisdom, and protection may lead them to later on nurture their own skill. Should the reader have already read my essay entitled The Polarisation of the Syzygy as the Source of Content, then I believe he would notice a certain similarity to the idea of the Logos of the Eros being projected unto those whom this internal fatherfigure of sort deem the individual should aspire to become more like. Lastly, in a sort of synthesis between the two, there exists also the use-case of desiring one's death to be honourable, which is typically used to explain why one would refrain from escaping from battle and to rather fight "honourably" or "like a man." The reason for this is not like the first when it was a display of one's skill but rather the hope that the memory other people will have of oneself when one is certain to die will be "honoured." In other words, that one has become someone worthy of "respect" because, despite failing to overcome the obstacle, one at least attempted to, which is worthy of "respect" due to one being at least recognised to possess a certain quality the Logos values greatly: bravery.
In his work On The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche explain the differences between Master and Slave morality. According to him, Master morality is proactive, whereas Slave morality is reactive. This, fundamentally speaking, is the real difference between the two. The only problem is that there is no such action that is not fundamentally reactive. Truly, the only action that could be considered to be pure action would be the "prime mover," so to speak, as they say. For every other action thereafter, in the line of causality, they cannot be anything but a reaction due to every action merely being an effect caused by the prime mover. For example, to use Nietzsche himself as an example, since he considered himself to embody Master morality, his entire body of work consists of nothing but reactions to other philosophies, which themselves are similarly nothing but reactions to other philosophers. However, what of the "prime mover" of philosophy? What of the cause that sparked the entire chain reaction known as "philosophy?" Whilst it may seem tempting to think so, the ideas and thoughts they had were not born from nothing. Every philosophical thought was conceived as a reaction to a stimuli. In other words, every philosophical thought was created by someone observing something and thinking really hard about it. That is to say, a reaction, not an action. But nevermind philosophy! It is nothing but Slave morality anyway. Look at nature. Look at the mighty lion doing as he pleases. What a stunning example of Master Morality indeed!... is probably something along the lines of what Nietzsche would have replied. However, that is not so, even if, on the surface, it may seem so. For about 22 hours of the day, the lion spends sleeping. Why? Because he has nothing else to do. The female lions hunt food for him. So, he has no need to do anything but sleep. In other words, him sleeping is a reaction to a lack things to do. If male lions were instead the ones who hunted for food, he would not be able to sleep for as long as he currently does. As for eating, it is a reaction to hunger. If there was no need to eat, if he could not experience hunger, the lion would not eat. But nevermind action! It is nothing but Slave morality anyway (lulwut?)! What we are discussing is not action (despite that being the object of discussion). We are discussing morality. And the masters' morality is born from them, whereas the slaves' morality is derived from something external to them... is probably something along the lines of what Nietzsche would have replied. Or, at the very least, my steelman version of Nietzsche, because I believe the real Nietzsche would have been intelligent enough to not respond with that, as it is riddled with inconsistencies and self-refuting statements. First of all, what is morality? According to Nietzsche, it is our "yay"s and "nay"s. In other words, what we like and dislike. In other words, our values. But how do know what our yays and nays are? By interacting with the world and reacting to it. For example, by eating a dish and having our taste buds decide whether we like or dislike it. In other words, our values, our morality, is a reaction to the world around us. It is our opinion of the world. That said, if our taste buds determine our opinion of food, would that not imply our tastes are pre-determined? In other words, despite not consciously knowing whether we may like something, the taste is latent. The only problem is that this would imply that all action is proactive, which would mean that there is no reaction. If everything is pre-determined, which is something Nietzsche does indeed believe, then no action can be reactive, because the "reaction" was pre-determined before the object of reaction was committed. However, at the same time, for that pre-determined, latent taste to exist, an action must have previously occurred to allow for its creation. In other words, its existence and thereby the latent taste, is a reaction to something, which would instead imply that all action, once again, is nothing but reaction except for the prime mover, if causality is to be believed. And if the prime mover is God would that not imply that, like Nietzsche himself claims to have initially believed when he wrote his first attempt at determining the origins of morality, that God created morality? Sometimes, I really have too much fun when I am writing. This is one of such times. Of course, this only proves that God created our ability to have opinions, not that these values are "objective," for if we did not exist, if our taste buds did not exist to evaluate the food we eat, the taste embedded within them would not exist as an external world that could be reacted to. Despite this, Nietzsche claims that Master and Slave morality arises differently. He claims that the masters regard themselves as good, and so when they see someone of lower value than themselves they regard them as "bad." This is how Master morality arises. Nietzsche claims that Slave morality, on the other hand, is created when the slaves see someone of higher value than themselves and regard them as "evil" and contrast themselves as being good. The only problem is that for the slaves to be able to regard someone as evil, they have to first regard themselves as good. Otherwise, it would be impossible for them to regard someone threatening their existence as evil if they did not regard their existence as good first, like how it would be impossible to know if something tastes bad if your tastes were not already pre-determined. After all, is Nietzsche not famous for claiming that every philosophy is nothing more than an auto-biography of its author? That is to say, that their entire philosophy is an attempt to justify their existence, values, and personal preferences before the court of objectivity. If Nietzsche had only taken a step back, he could have realised that he had only needed to differentiate them based on how they regard their enemy, not how their morality arises in addition to that. In the case of the masters, they view their enemy as "bad," because they hold no malice for them, whereas the slaves do, which is why Nietzsche takes the time to clarify that the slaves view their enemy as "evil," since they are resentful of them for having a higher value than them, which is why they seek to destroy them, whereas the masters have no intention of destroying that which they deem bad. They only regard them as "bad."
Despite this seeming semantic, it is nevertheless important if we truly want to arrive at the real Truth™ of this world, which I believe Nietzsche was very close to, but unfortunately not fully. I do want to clarify that I do not necessarily disagree with his belief that there are two main types of moralities. I simply disagree with the notion that they can be divided based on action and reaction, for reasons already outlined. Moreover, whilst I do not wholly disagree that Master morality is aristocratic whereas Slave morality is plebeian, I do disagree somewhat. The reason for this is because the aristocrats or the bourgeoisie, if so preferred, despite supposedly being the arbiters of morality, according to Nietzsche, are the most affected by Slave morality due to being the most civilised by the external morality of society, which they supposedly created and are in control of. It is for this reason the term "champagne socialist," despite appearing paradoxical to the uninitiated, is not paradoxical in the slightest, for socialism is nothing more than the most civilised and efficient means of allocating resources to the most amount of people, at least on paper, which would explain why the bourgeoisie, the most civilised people in society, would support such an ideology, regardless of the fact that they would gain no monetary compensation for doing so but would rather only pay larger amounts of taxes, as they are the ones with the most capital and highest income, because, that way, they would appear more civilised and moral. Because of this, despite being the aristocracy, despite being those who supposedly embody Master morality, they instead embody Slave morality, as Socialism, according to Nietzsche, is deeply rooted in Slave morality, as the basis for it is to reduce everything that is superior to the same plane of the mediocre, so that everything may be mediocre. Why would the masters embody Slave morality despite themselves not being slaves? Is Master morality not supposed to be unique to the masters, and is not Slave morality supposed to be unique to the slaves? There is the argument that the current aristocracy is simply decadent, which is true, but, if that is to be believed, that would imply that the European aristocracy has been decadent for a very long time, since the upper class has always been obsessed with maintaining appearances. In a certain sense, would the peasants not have been the one least conditioned by the external morality, as they did not have to worry about keeping up appearances at parties and the like, as the upper class already regarded them as inferior? As it would turn out, when an Empire enters into the Silver Age and onwards, the cities, the central hubs of civilisation, begin to attract Left-Leaning individuals, since civilisation by its very nature is Left-wing, as it is the motherly delusion that all kids should get along and play nice with each other instead of fighting. For those with a natural aversion towards this decadence, the countryside come to serve as a refuge for those who lean Right, due to such a lifestyle being an authentic reflection of reality, instead of an artificial and inauthentic imposition on nature by man. However, to return to the original point, if the slaves can be masters, and if the masters can be slaves, would that not imply that the classification is flawed? Should the classification not, in a certain sense, be infallible? That is to say, true, in every case, with no exceptions, for if there are or can be allowed to be exceptions would that not be nothing short of an admittance that the classification is flawed? Sadly, the classification only works during the initial stages of an empire, where the ruling class were the ones who themselves conquered their subjects, instead of merely having inherited their position, as that is the only moment when they would have had the freedom to declare what is good and bad, with everyone thereafter simply having to condition themselves as to obey those commandments, regardless of whether they themselves were masters or slaves.
From this, it is possible to extrapolate that what Master morality really means is the freedom to create, inter alia, values, whereas Slave morality is the appropriation of what the masters have created as a means of restricting others from ascertaining a higher value than them and, in some cases, to devalue others by appealing to what the masters have created and declaring that they have committed sacrilege against the creation. It is this that I believe the two moralities really are: creation and subversion. This dichotomy can be observed in many instances. Most notably, that between man (creation) and woman (subversion), in addition to that of Europeans (creation) and Jews (subversion). The subverters, to which the vast majority of population belong, suffers from the "crabs in a bucket" mentality. 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 creator sees someone more successful than himself, more beautiful than himself, someone whom he would not rather want to be but rather someone whom he would like to one day surpass, not by depreciating their value but by appreciating his own value, he does not resent them, he respects them. The existence of the former type, despite what the 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 other 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. It is for this reason that during the initial stages of an empire, the ruling class are the ones who create, because they are responsible for the creation of the empire, whereas, at the end of its lifetime, when the ruling class has become decadent and would rather waste their time keeping up appearances than assuring the prosperity of their empire, it is instead the revolutionaries who are the ones who create, as death of the old empire gives birth to a new one, which would imply that the initial ruling class and the revolutionaries are one and the same, only seen through different perspectives.
Seeing only what he wants to see whilst averting his eyes from all else, man likes to appropriate Truth™ as "his Truth™" in-order to justify his behaviour and beliefs, and, as is universal for all men, assumes, regardless of whether it is true or not, that he, and only he, possesses the objectively correct Truth™, due to it being disadvantageous for his survival not to suppose all his actions and conviction as well as his entire being are justified within the framework known as "Truth™." This is the reason the clown act known as "debates" are nothing more than a complete waste of time. But regardless of the fact that most are aware of the utter futility in attempting to convince another of one's worldview with Logos-based arguments, the fact of the matter nevertheless remains that most participate in futile debates, regardless, despite their futility, due to neither action nor belief being derived from Logos but Eros instead. Hence, a debate is when two or more people try to convince another that their subjective preferences, opinions, and interpretations, which are only believed in due to being the most convenient justifications for one's existence, are not only to be recognised as rationally justified but should also be regarded as the one and only correct and objective Truth™; contrarily to the scientific process where the outcome of the experiment conditions the hypothesis, so that the Truth™ may some day be discovered after countless trials and errors, in debates, the thesis can never be allowed to be tainted by the arguments of oneself or others, since it is not the Truth™ that is sought after but rather the satisfaction and peace of mind attained after having successfully defended one's worldview, and thus one's entire justification for continuing to live.
At best, the reader may reflect, contemplate, and doubt his own temporary Truth™ by attempting to explain it to someone incapable of doubt, and thus allowing him to test the soundness of his theory. Hence, the greatest tool the reader has at his disposal is the simple inquiry, "why?" Why is good thought to be good, whereas evil is evil? Why is superior thought to be good, whereas inferior is evil? Why is beauty thought to be good, whereas ugliness is evil? Why is happiness and peace thought to be good, whereas misery and chaos are evil? Why is God thought to be good, whereas the Devil is evil? Why is Tradition thought to be good, whereas Anti-Tradition is evil? Why are any of these even dichotomies? To all these questions, which are all perfectly reasonable to inquire about, the only answer one will ever receive (besides circular reasoning) is a dumbfounded expression due to the recipient being in complete disbelief that one would dare to be so sacrilegious as to question the basis of these common value judgements instead of simply taking them for granted. Ergo, due to the absence of any rational justification for the moral prescriptions referenced previously, the assumption that they hold any water is based on nothing but pure faith. Although, in the end, after having been consecutively probed with "why?"s, one after another to the point of exhaustion, it will gradually become clear as day that all of them hinge on the assumption that life is good in-of-itself, whereas death is evil in-of-itself. Despite this entire essay having also presumed the same form of morality as true, there is admittedly no no basis for it, as it is merely, much like the other examples, a subjective preference. The only reason most agree with such a claim is because the genes of those who disagreed with it did not continue their bloodline, whereas those who did profligated, which is the reason most people who are alive today agree that life is good in-of-itself, since their DNA was encoded with such a belief, as they are the descendants of the latter group. However, in-order to justify one's continued existence, not to mention participating in a philosophical debate of any nature (since philosophy is the study of existence and the most efficient mode of being according to the laws of reality, it would be preposterous to allow those who do not prefer life to death to participate in the debate, as their beliefs contradicts the very essence of philosophy), one is required to operate under the assumption that life is preferable to death due to life, according to the delusion, being good in-of-itself, whereas death is evil in-of-itself. If this were not the case, then one should have no justifiable excuse for why one has not committed suicide yet, as one's continued existence is in-of-itself proof that one prefers life to death, as opposed to having no qualms about ending one's life due to it being proof of one's total indifference towards it. Thus, any philosophy whose thesis does not suppose life is preferable to death can be disregarded on the basis that the philosopher who wrote it did not commit suicide the very moment he genuinely came to be convinced of it and not only continued to live but also decided to manifest the representation of his will into a trilogy of premium grade copium.
For a hypothesis to exist, an assumption must be made. For example, "the sky is blue." Afterwards, an argument or proof can be presented to substantiate the claim. For example, by taking a look at the sky, revealing it to be blue. Ergo, it is an objective fact that 2+2=4, and that the sky is blue, since they can be proven. But what is not an objective Truth™ is that morality is objective as it cannot be proven so. Countless have tried, but all failed miserably. They thought if they could invent the most efficient custom, it would logically follow that such a custom was this elusive Truth™. Whilst there certainly is much wisdom in their works, all unfortunately neglected to substantiate a certain assumption, underlying all their thought: that life is inherently good. The Greeks thought the highest good for man was to live a good life and achieve a state of "well-being." But this assumption was never substantiated as an objective fact of life; it was merely assumed so. Hence, even if these "objective" moralities are logically consistent within such a framework, to declare them "objective" when they are based on subjectivism is utterly preposterous. Ergo, the belief in the existence of an objective morality or value hierarchy is ludicrous, as neither of them would even exist as concepts were it not for man and his incessant need of categorising reality based on whether or not it is beneficial to his survival; outside of man's mind, nothing has an inherent value or meaning, due to them being attributes prescribed by man, not discovered by him. For example, when people come to learn the hidden meaning behind 69, 137, 369, 420, 666, 9/11, 1337, 1488, etc., these numbers suddenly become more important to them as a result of having been imbued with meaning, despite such prescriptions not being intrinsic to them at all, as anyone not aware of their hidden meaning would simply regard them with as much significance as any other number. Furthermore, depending on the values of the individual, the meaning of an object can differ greatly. For example, whereas a collectivist may regard collectivism as good and individualism as bad, an individualist would think the inverse. To provide another, more thought provoking example, in the West, Christians appear to believe themselves to have a monopoly on God. If you prove the existence of God, you prove the existence of their God, and vice versa. However, if one were to do the same in a non-Christian dominated culture, for example in India, it would instead be proof of Hinduism. But even if one were to prove the existence of God, it nevertheless does not logically follow that morality must be objective. God could have created the heaven and earth without an objective value hierarchy. Who is to say otherwise? After all, the track record is rather grim, to say the least. Moreover, why is it thought that objectivity is preferable to subjectivity? Is it simply a subjective preference for objectivity that supposes it to be good by virtue of the preference? On what basis can it possibly be argued that objectivity is either good or evil when moral judgements do not even exist outside the realm of subjectivity?
It will never stop being hilarious whenever a Christian lambast hedonism for being degenerate. First of all, what is hedonism? As misunderstood by the uneducated (read: "Christians"), it means maximising pleasure, whilst minimising pain. In other words, utilitarianism (Christian morality) taken to its logical extreme. However, that is not what hedonism originally meant. Instead, it meant minimising pleasure so that when you do experience pleasure you can enjoy the simple pleasures of life to their fullest. The fundamental difference between them is thinking that the modern conception of its highest good is overdosing on heroin, whereas the original understanding was to find contentment in the simple pleasures of everyday life, like eating. The reason why I find it so hilarious is, if there are no "higher" values, like I have disproven, then all value systems are fundamentally based on the maxim of maximising pleasure whilst minimising pain, including Christianity. The only difference is that they claim they do not in a vain attempt to seem superior. The only scenario in which the opposite is true would be if someone was a masochist, which would, ironically enough, mean that maximising pain, for them, would instead be the equivalent of maximising pleasure, since they derive pleasure from pain. The knee-jerk counter-argument to this would be that maximising pleasure is bad, because, in-order to maintain oneself and society, you have to endure through a certain amount of pain to keep being able to experience said pleasure. Otherwise, society would collapse, from a lack of work participation, which is indeed correct. However, this is not a valid counter-argument. If anything, it is a argument in favour of what I have detailed. If highest good for someone is experiencing pleasure, even if they would have to endure some levels of pain in-order to maintain society to keep being able to experience such levels of pleasure, then doing so would fall in line with maximising pleasure whilst minimising pain, because, if they did not, if society was not maintained, and if they were deprived of being able to experience that certain amount of pleasure, then the amount of pleasure they would be able to experience would decrease. In other words, by doing they former, they maximise pleasure, and by doing the latter, the maximise pain, which is why they will do the former, even if they would be forced to have to endure some pain, because the pain they would have to suffer from if they did not would outweigh their current pain. As it would turn out, the reason why the modern interpretation of hedonism is perceived as bad compared to its original inception is because if you take maximising pleasure to its logical conclusion and overdose on heroin, you could risk dying, which would mean you would no longer be able to experience pleasure.
For as much as I dislike Christians, at least they have the conviction to assert what they believe instead of sitting on the fence about it like the agnostics. For those, I have absolutely no respect whatsoever. If you refuse to take a side, if you refuse to assert your beliefs, even if you may be wrong, simply because there is no clear consensus, social or empirical, then you are a woman. Be a man and voice your fucking opinion instead of pussy footing around it. If anything, I hate those without conviction.
One of the most common arguments Christians like to employ for why we should return to Christianity is simply because religion is needed, which is true. However, because they suggest we should return to Christianity, specifically, it is extremely obvious that they are merely repeating something they have once been told, without really understanding what it actually means, for what really is religion, and why is it needed? Religion is a collection of rituals, beliefs, and symbols (memes). For example, going to Church on Sunday, believing in God, and wearing a cross. However, religion does not have to be theistic in nature for it to count as a religion. Any set of rituals, beliefs, and symbols counts as a religion. For example, even something like playing video games and being part of gaming culture counts as being religious, as it naturally involves participating in certain rituals, holding certain beliefs, and understanding the meaning behind certain symbols. Given this example, it should be obvious that being part of a certain religion is more or less synonymous with belonging to a certain culture. For example, in the Persona community (a term people like to use to denote their certain religion), there are often times discussions about the games, mostly about the modern trilogy, about various things, which can be both likened to debating the meaning of verses in the Bible as well as debating which denomination is the best one. In the past, before Christianity labelled everything non-Christian as "heretic" or "Pagan," these various culture used to be called "cults." There was the cult of Mithras, for example, which had a specific set of rituals, beliefs, and symbols that distinguished it from other cults with other rituals, beliefs, and symbols. In the modern world, these different cults can be thought of as being different websites. For example, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter all have different cultures, because they all have different rituals, beliefs, and symbols. The reason why religion is therefore needed is because it gives people an understanding of the world in addition to their values. Without these things, people would not be able to justify their own existence, and if they have no way to justify their existence, there is no reason why they should not commit suicide, for the most basic belief in any religion is that your own life is inherently good.
The fundamental problem facing Christians trying to once again spread the gospel is that nobody actually believes the Bible is true, that God is real, or that there is an afterlife. As a matter of fact, I am more theistic than any of these people, because I actually believe God exists. In contrast, the only reason they are Christian are purely for pragmatic reasons: so that they can claim that they are morally superior than others by appealing to the authority of the Bible, despite there being nothing to substantiate the authority of the Bible with, because unless you believe in the Bible yourself, there is no reason to recognise the Bible as an authority on anything, because it is basically just, "source: trust me bro." Because of this, and because Christianity is not European, many have attempted to revive Paganism by claiming that we should return to the "old Gods." The only problem with this gesture is that it also suffers from the same problem Christianity suffers from: nobody actually believes that these Gods are real. For example, no Pagan really believes Odin is real. They all admit they are simply expressions of Archetypes, which is not wrong, but that obviously begs the question as to why we should even bother calling the Father of the Trinity "Odin" if no one believes that the Father is Odin and no one but Odin. For what reason would you even bother? Just call a spade a spade... is what I would argue if there was not a need to romanticise reality, to give colour to mundane things, and, generally speaking, make reality feel more meaningful than what it actually is. The fundamental problem is that this exoteric mask that is donned on the esoteric must have arisen organically. It cannot have been consciously curated. We cannot choose our religion, just like how we cannot choose our DNA, the country we were born in, or the culture we belong to, as our religion encompasses all these things. Even if you are Christian, you still follow the religion of modernity to a larger extent than Christianity, because that is the culture you actually live in, and despite how much you may try to distance yourself from it, there is nothing you can do about it, because the religion you follow is not something for you to simply decide. It is not something you can put together yourself, like the Theosophist tried. It is instead something that evolves organically around you from people interacting with each other and creating things and symbols as a result of those interactions.
This is the fundamental reason why neither Christianity nor Paganism are viable alternatives simply due to the fact that their status as the dominant religion has to be debated. If either Christianity or Paganism were a part of our current, dominant religion, and if people practised their rituals, embodied their beliefs, and used their symbols, their truthfulness would never get called into question, like how nobody questions that murder or pedophilia are wrong due to how ingrained these believes are in our culture. A common mistake people tend to make is to assume the dominant religion of any culture is merely a compartmentalised segment of their lives, with no connection or influence on the rest of their lives, which is not to difficult to understand given that the only connection most Europeans have had to Christianity for quite some time was delegated to a couple of hours every Sunday. Rather, the dominant culture underpins everything else in their lives and is the thing that their entire lives revolves around. It is a kind of glue that binds everything in their lives together and that affects every aspect of their lives. After all, the English word "religion" is thought to be derived from the religare, which is a portmanteau of re ("again") ligare ("bind" or "connect"). Basically, the religion you subscribe to is not something you can simply unsubscribe from if you so desire, like how you can unsubscribe from YouTube channels, for it is simply the milieu you live in, like how no matter if you unsubscribe from a YouTube channel, you are nevertheless using YouTube. Not to mention that the only reason you are able to understand what these references mean is because you are familiar with the culture on YouTube. In other words, you are a part of the cult of YouTube. Do we need to debate whether we are a part of the cult of YouTube? No, because everyone performs the ritual of watching YouTube videos and understand the symbols and jargon used on YouTube. These things do not need to be called into question because they are apparent to everyone, as YouTube is part of the dominant religion of modernity, unlike both Christianity and Paganism.
The reason why a lot of people want Christianity to be the dominant culture, nonetheless, is due to a desire for stability, as, compared to most of history, our culture is rapidly changing. If, for example, a peasant from the early Medieval times travelled forward in time to the end of it, he would have been surrounded by people who behaved like him and believed the same things as him. In other words, despite being separated by several centuries, they would have been connected through their shared culture. If, however, he had instead been transported into the current year, he would not have been able to understand our customs, rituals, or behaviour, and our beliefs would have been almost as alien to him as if we had come from another planet, assuming he would even have been able to consider the possibility that there are other planets, let alone that there could be life on them. This technological development is advancing so rapidly, in fact, that each generation has been divided into different cults, because the cultural gap between them, as a result of rapid technological development, simply necessitates such a categorisation. During Medieval times, everyone had basically the same childhood, and everyone had believed for centuries in Christianity. As such, because every generation shared the same experiences, only experienced at different times, there was a shared culture. This cannot be said for today, because every generation's childhood has been vastly different from each other. As such, they cannot relate to each other, and, because of that, they cannot understand each other, because they are not sharing the same culture, because they are not going through the same milestones in a similar fashion. This is why older generations will never be able to understand that "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a futile gesture in a society with no reasonable opportunity to attain anything worth pursuing, because, when they were young, there were reasonable opportunities available to them to succeed in life.
This is partially why Christianity has the upper hand over Paganism, because everyone is already familiar with its culture and symbols, whereas Paganism is much more alien to them. Even to us who are Scandinavian, we have very little connection to the Vikings and their Gods, because we simply do not share their culture. The only problem with this upper hand is that it is incredibly weak. Yes, Christianity has been a dominant, cultural force for the past two millennia in Europe. That is indeed true. However, when you actually read the Bible, you will very quickly realise that the contents of it are far removed from anything European, because the Bible was written by Jews, about Jews, for Jews, not by Europeans, about Europeans, for Europeans. To provide an example, despite the fact that I can watch anime and understand the culture, I will never truly be able to understand and relate to Japanese culture, because I am not Japanese. In the same vein, despite the fact that there are elements to the Bible that provide a structure for fostering psychical health and a form of morality that is needed to maintain a high-trust society, there will always be a disconnect between them and us, because they are not our forefathers. They are Jews, not Europeans. Even then, suppose the Jews of the Bible were actually European, the problem still remains that their culture is vastly different from ours, because the world they lived in is vastly different from ours. As in the case of the bootstraps example mentioned earlier, it fails to address the problems we face in modern times.
Regarding the argument that we need to return to Christianity since only Christian morality can create high-trust societies, this is not only incorrect but disingenuous to the point that I would argue that it is malicious. First of all, as previously explained, "Christian morality" is not something unique to Christianity, as it is nothing more than the Golden Rule, which means that we do not need Christianity to grant us access to its supposed unique form of morality to create high-trust societies, as it is nothing more than the Golden Rule, which can be called upon independently off Christianity. Secondly, the reason our contemporary society is as decadent as it is is not because we abandoned Christianity and were left with a vacuum of nothingness. Rather, it is because we replaced Christianity with Anti-National-Socialism, since we were led to believe that National-Socialism is the greatest evil of all time, as it supposedly led to the death 6 gorillion Jews, which is something we only perceive as bad due to thinking that murder is universally bad, thanks to Christian morality. As such, supporting racial segregation, nationalism, patriarchy, civic duty, health, excellence, traditional gender roles, and opposing degeneracy is thus morally bad because they are the virtues of National-Socialism, whereas supporting mass immigration, globalism, matriarchy, narcissism, unhealthiness, mediocrity, equality, and indulging in degeneracy is thus morally good because they are the opposite virtues of National-Socialism. The decadence our contemporary society finds itself in is therefore not the result of abandoning Christianity and embracing Atheism instead, but is instead the direct result of Christian morality, as we never abandoned Christian morality when we abandoned Christianity in favour of Atheism, because we still believe in objective morality, which is the reason why the virtues of National-Socialism were deemed as evil and is the very reason why society is decadent. Thirdly, the reason Leftists and Atheists dislike Christianity is not because their values are in opposition to Christian morality but rather because their values are the logical conclusion of Christian morality. The reason they dislike it is because they perceive it as oppressive due to it being perceived as patriarchal. As such, due to it potentially causing entropy within the group by oppressing the weak, it is attacked. Fourthly, promoting Christianity instead of proper Conservatism or National-Socialism leads to more Anti-National-Socialism. The supposed version of Christianity that Ring-wing Christians have successfully managed to delude themselves is the true version of Christianity is neither the true version of it nor is it the version that is practised by the vast majority of Christians, except for these fringe groups of people. What is therefore accomplished when these Ring-wing Christians manage to convert normalfaggots to Christianity is that they expose them to regular Christians, who are all turbo Marxists, which makes these normalfaggots believe that being a turbo Marxists is what they should be as well if they want to be proper Christians, which is not wrong, if you actually read the Bible, and is the reason why there are thousands of different Christian charities that help shitskins, but that is not the result we want, because what we want is not a rise in Anti-National-Socialism but a rise in National-Socialism, which means that distancing ourselves from Christianity and Christians as much as possible is of utmost importance, as it should already be obvious the damage it has done and will continue to inflict upon the movement by trying to base our morality on a fundamentally Marxist religion that was created by Jews to oppose Marxism and Jewish influence.
The reason why Christianity is perceived as Conservative, despite how Marxist it actually is, is due to the fact that it is associated with Conservatism due to having been an integral part of European culture when it was Conservative. Even though there are passages in the Bible to support a conservative reading of the Bible, it is not because of the Bible that Christianity is associated with Conservatism. The reason why Christianity is thought to be Conservative is because the people in the past who where Conservatives, by our standards, happened to be Christian, not because they were Christian. The reason for this is monotheism. Believe it or not, but Monotheism is actually closer aligned to Atheism than Polytheism. Polytheists believe their Gods to inhabit objects in the world around them. For example, a lake can have its own guardian spirit and so on. Monotheists, on the other hand, do not believe their God walks amongst them. They instead believe their God exists in a separate world from them. Because of this, Polytheism allows for a much more personal connection with the divine than Monotheism. Some may argue prayer is a form of connection to the divine, but it is entirely unrequited act, like throwing a bottled message in the sea. As such, the only connection Christians have to their God is the Bible. The only problem is that for most of the time Europe was Christian, only the priests could read the Bible, and the priests did not translate the Bible in real time when they read from it during sermons. No, they instead opted for reading it in the language it was written in, Latin, which no peasant spoke. Basically, from the perspective of most Christians during those times, the modern equivalent to their only real connection to the divine would have been like watching anime without subtitles or even video for 3-4 hours every Sunday. Can these people even be called Christian? Are you not supposed to believe in the Bible? But how can you believe in the Bible when you do not even understand what is written in it? How many of them even remotely understood what the Bible contained? How many of them even knew more about the Bible than what is commonly known by people who are not even Christians? Like the Garden of Eden, Moses, and Jesus? As such, they were Christian in name only, like so many Christians are today as well. They did what people had done for ages, long before they were Christians: they worked, they married, they had kids, they died. None of these things are unique to Christianity. The Romans did these things as well. But because Christianity has been a constant for so many centuries, these practices, which are usually considered Conservative and traditional, have become associated with Christianity, as if they exist because of it. If, for example, Europe had not become Christian but had instead remained Pagan, then Paganism would have instead been associated with Conservatism.
Regardless of the fact that Christians may claim they love the Truth™ and base their entire understanding on the Truth™, their behaviour tells an entirely different story. Because of this, I have never had a worse interaction with another group of people than Christians. I have never met another group of people that can claim they love Truth™ yet refuse to accept the Truth™ when presented to them; I have never met another group of people that can claim you should take them seriously and engage with their best thinkers yet refuse to take you seriously unless you already agree with them; I have never met another group of people that are as disingenuous yet will claim that you are the disingenuous one because you did not instantly agree with them when they demanded you to; I have never met another group of people whose morality and values are as arbitrary yet will claim that their morality and values are the the most sound of them all; I have never met another group of people who can profess their love for the Holy Spirit and claim that the corporeal does not matter yet are obsessed with aesthetics; I have never met another group of people that claim their beliefs are the Truth™ yet contradict themselves several times in a single sentence; I have never met another group of people that are more prone to playing the victim card than Christians; I have never met another group of people that are as pathetic, as insufferable, and as dumb as Christians. If these people loved the Truth™ and adhered only to the Truth™, as they claim, then there would be a very clear logic behind all their behaviour, yet there is none. Despite many attempts to probe into the minds of Christians, I always fail, which, as it would turn out, is not because their logic is too complex to comprehend but rather because their logic is not based on Logos but Eros instead. As previously explained in the preceding paragraph, Christians do not derive their values from the Bible but rather derive them from their instincts, like every other organism. If they were to encounter something that their instincts dislike, they call it "evil." If they were to encounter something that their instincts like, they call it "good." What is particularly interesting is that the reason they are able to justify their behaviour to themselves is because their conscience is supplied to them via the Holy Spirit. In other words, because they are Christian, their values are supplied to them via the Holy Spirit. As such, if the Holy Spirit deems something good or evil it must be so because it was supplied to them from God, who is infallible, because God is the Truth™. What this means is that their behaviour is actually not rooted in Truth™ but rather in whatever makes them feel either comfortable or uncomfortable, as the things they typically like are whatever they are familiar with, whereas the things they typically dislike are whatever they are unfamiliar with. If you wish to verify this, learn the difference behind the meaning of the up-wards and down-wards pointing hexagrams, and study their behaviour when confronted with either of these symbols. What you will come to discover is that they are fundamentally extreme tribalists. This is why, despite the Bible clearly espousing a universalist form of morality, it is entirely possible for Ring-wing Christians to fashion themselves National-Socialists, because, contrary to what is believed, their morality is not derived from the Bible, but is rather merely justified using the Bible, regardless of whether that which is attempted to be justified contradicts another passage. This is because they only regard the word of the Bible as law when it benefits them. This is made possible due to the wide variety of things the Bible covers, which therefore makes it possible to substantiate whatever belief one so desires with it. However, when it does not, then the passage is simply wrong, because it is not supposed to be interpreted literally and is instead supposed to be interpreted symbolically or vice versa (the choice is entirely dependent on whatever is able to justify their current beliefs); or because it does not make sense unless you understand it within the context of another passage, which suddenly becomes important as a result of being important to justify the former passage, disregarding completely that if another passage contradicts their beliefs, they will simply flat-out ignore it; or they will simply make up a lie on the spot, out of thin air, in an attempt to justify it, since all that actually matters to them is the fact that it is possible to find a passage that loosely agrees with them, which can therefore be used to justify their beliefs with, no matter of how far-fetched the interpretation is or if it contradicts another passage, because you are not arguing with them about the Truth™ of the Bible. You are arguing with them about their emotions, which they will always side with, because they do not care about the Truth™. They only care about their emotions, which they call the Truth™ in-order to justify their existence and behaviour before the court of objectivity. As for why they cling to Christianity, in particular, it is due to it being associated with Conservatism, as outlined above, not because it is the Truth™.
But to return to the topic of modern cults, one of the best prominent religions today is that of the pills, such as the redpill, bluepill, blackpill, and whitepill. Despite all of these being individual cults, they all belong to the same religion, as the meaning behind their names, practise, and beliefs are known to all the different cult members. This interaction between the different pills and their members has given rise to a few dichotomies. There are the ones that most people are already familiar with, like the blue-and-redpill dichotomy and the black-and-whitepill dichotomy. However, there are also a few that, whilst most people are not consciously aware of like the previously two, they are nevertheless unconsciously aware of them, as they tend to be associated with each other. For example, the redpill and blackpill are typically lumped together because becoming aware of the realities of society often times leads to depression or, generally speaking, leads to one adopting a pessimistic or eschatological world view. This is, then, contrasted with the bluepill and whitepill, as living in blissful ignorance of the realities of society often times leads to one feeling happier or, generally speaking, leads to one adopting an optimistic world view. There are a few more, but I think the reader gets the picture. Additionally, what interests me, in particular, about these pills is that they happen to be a quaternity. As anyone familiar with Alchemy might gather from this, what this might tell us is that we need to advance through all the different pills in-order to become whole. If I had to guess, it would go something like this: bluepill, redpill, blackpill (the nigredo), and, finally, whitepill (albedo). The reason I think the redpill is not the last stage, so as to symbolise the rubedo, is because there needs to be a reason for why someone would make such a radical departure from the bluepill to the blackpill, which, given the pills we have at our disposal, could only be explained by them taking the redpill and becoming blackpilled as a result of it. What is the rubedo, then? Maybe it is the absence of the pills and instead the ability to perceive reality for what it is, without one's perception of it being coloured by different pills, and without the need to cope.
Across all spiritual doctrines and religions, delusion has been rebranded as "Truth™" and "wisdom." For example, the Gnostics wanted to achieve Gnosis (the state of knowing the Truth™) by uniting with Sophia (wisdom). What is particularly interesting about this is that it is always a feminine force that leads one to the Truth™. In Hermeticism, this feminine force (Eros) is depicted as a down-wards pointing triangle or a cup to be filled with water, mirroring the myth of the Holy Grail. Supposedly, drinking from this cup will not only bestow one with the Truth™ but also grant one eternal life, mirroring the myth of the Fountain of Youth. This blueprint can be found in every religion, even in Christianity. After having had multiple disputes with the local Jewish community about the proper ways their God had intended for them to practise their religion, many Jews had begun to despise Jesus and wished him dead. They pleaded for Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea at the time, to crucify Jesus. Seeing as the Jews were notorious troublemakers, Pilate decided to comply with their wishes, as he did not wish for yet another revolution to blossom. On his way to the crucifixion site, Jesus was forced to carry the cross he would later be crucified on by himself, which later found itself into the English language as an expression for taking on a burden or difficulty; before one is able to drink of the waters of the cup, one is forced to overcome an obstacle, to "slay the dragon," allowing one thereafter to kiss the sleeping princess. Difficult as it may be, one remains motivated by the desire to drink from the cup. In the case of Jesus, it was the Holy Spirit that gave Jesus the strength to endure his hardship, as he believed his Father was watching over him. Depending on whose account one may read, Jesus is either blessed or abandoned by his Father. But regardless of the outcome, what allowed Jesus to endure it all was the Holy Spirit: the delusion that his Father would save him. Even now, the blind belief in an afterlife or some form of spiritual Truth™ provides many with a sense of purpose, regardless of the fact that it is utter nonsense. I remember, from a not so distant past, when I, too, was able to partake in such folly. It was fun; I felt like a kid again. It gave my life meaning; it gave colour and vibrancy to my otherwise dull world. Was it true? No, but it did not have to be true for it to be fun. After all, were the games you played as a child true? Hence, it is preferable, from the perspective of someone who prefers life to death, to never search for the Truth™ but to instead live in blissful ignorance, allowing the sweet fog of illusion to shroud one's vision, because the real Truth™ is merely objective reality, which is boring.
A common pattern that can be observed concerning the matter of "spirituality" is the use of empty words. For example, the very word I just employed, "spirituality." It is a word that means nothing, because it has no clear definition, and when asked what they even mean by it, no one can provide a clear answer other that pointing at some vague sort of mysticism. If it was not obvious already, these people have no idea what they are even talking about. They have no idea what any of the things they claim to be so "deep" even mean. They only pretend to know what they are talking about to make themselves seem superior to others. This is why, if you read any books on the subject, their prose is always far too purple and flowery, in a vain attempt to mask the fact that the matter they are discussing is neither profound nor difficult to comprehend. Granted, they would never dare to admit this fact. That is why they hide behind their jargon and symbols: to masquerade themselves. As a matter of fact, this is what "spirituality" really means: to conceal wisdom everyone already knows, at least unconsciously, with exotic and confusing labels and, then, turn around and claim that no one actually knows this extremely conventional wisdom because they do not use the correct jargon. After all, the very meaning of the word occult is "hidden knowledge." It is for this reason most discussion about spirituality essentially boils down to repeating the correct things, the correct words, the correct sentences, etc., to signal to others that you know the correct labels, so that they can, then, praise you for repeating them correctly, or reprimand you if you happen to get them wrong. The only problem is that the the labels in-of-themselves are completely worthless, which is why bothering to learn the correct labels (i.e. what studying the so-called "occult" boils down to) is a complete waste of time, as everyone and their grandmother already understands the meaning behind the thing the label is assigned to. They simply do not know what label corresponds to it. It would be like prohibiting someone from eating because they do not know what it is called in Chinese.
What has gradually become apparent is that very few, if any, actually believe the so-called "Truth™" they claim to espouse; they subscribe to it not because it is logically consistent but rather for aesthetic reasons. For example, Traditionalists will that claim they are "riding the tiger," "surfing the Kali Yuga," and that they are "aristocrats of the soul"; Gnostics will claims that they are going to achieve "Gnosis," defeat the "Demiurge," and that they are "pneumatics"; Christian Identitarians (the only type of Christian who will deny the undeniable fact that the Bible was written by Jews, about Jews, for Jews) will claim that the Jews are the "Synagogue of Satan," that Europeans are the "real Jews of the Bible," and that, despite the fact Europeans had already settled in Europe millennia before, they are actually the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel. Although, even assuming Jesus to have been European, there is no reason to believe he was right about the things he said, as there is likewise no reason to believe someone to be right solely because they are of European descent. Naturally, the only reason they believe any of this is because it provides them with a raison d'être: basking in their power fantasies and delusion of grandeur, they fight (by doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary) against the ontologically evil in their respective doctrine, making them by virtue justified to behave as they please due to being ontologically good. Hence, I hardly believe they, inter alia, truly understand anything they claim to believe. There is a considerable lack of depth to everything they spout. They merely repeat the same talking-points over and over again. It is almost robotic. It is as if though they have been programmed to respond with a certain phrase when prompted with a certain query, thinking the response to be adequate enough to ward off all form of criticism. They appear to believe that it is an argument in good faith to say, "according to me, you are wrong, and I am right." However, when such a brilliant display of logic unfortunately fails to convince anyone but the choir, they all resort to name-calling. Interestingly enough, they all have their own version of "based" ("you affirm the justification for my existence, making you my ally") and "cringe" ("you deny the justification for my existence, making you my enemy"). They appear to believe that if one happens to be of the cringe variety, one is simply unfit or unable to truly understand the brilliance of their arguments, or, as is more common due to their erratic and hostile nature, that one is simply an agent of evil, having been sent by the Matrix to neutralise them. Moreover, it is rather naïve to assume that philosophy is exempt from this rule and is instead an activity reserved only for rational people when it is in actuality nothing more than tribalism, which anyone who has ever been unfortunate enough to witness a debate of any kind can attest to. Indeed, the only reason why philosophers are respected in any regard is because they are perceived as authority figures. Should, for example, the reader 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.
In Revolt Against The Modern Revolt, Evola claims that people in the past were more rooted in Tradition as a result of having direct access to the supra-consciousness due to them being more conscious. What therefore fascinated me greatly was when he criticised rationalism for precisely that: being conscious. If Evola's entire thesis is that the consciousness decreases over time and is inversely correlated with an increase of unconsciousness, how could he, then, explain the rise of rationalism in the Kali Yuga, let alone be against it, for is not an increase in consciousness precisely that which he wants? Of course, I am merely toying with him and the reader at this point, as I have already extensively explained how deeply flawed his ideas truly are. However, now that the reader should be more familiar with the things I am discussing, he should now be able to understand some of the grander implications of them, for it is not consciousness that decreases over time, but is instead unconsciousness that does so. As such, the reason people lost direct access to the "supra-consciousness," to use Evola's vocabulary once more, was not because it simply happened, as a result of nothing, as people did not cease to be rational and conscious once they were separate from it, as can be readily observed with the rise of rationalism, but instead because, as I have already explained, the "supra-consciousness" is not fundamentally rooted in consciousness but in unconsciousness instead. What therefore caused the separation between man and the collective unconscious (the so-called "supra-consciousness") was the development of the ego and the birth of consciousness, which usurped power from the unconscious and over time stifled its influence on the psyche to the extent experienced today. If understood from this perspective, it would explain the rise of rationalism in a time where people should supposedly be in a vegetative state of consciousness, whilst, at the same time, explain why man remained separated from the "supra-consciousness."
For a very limited number of people, who have both read this and my previous essay where I discuss the Syzygy and understand what it is I am getting at, you may be perplexed as to how I can denounce objective morality whilst claiming the conscience of the current Aion is conditioned by the morality derived from Pisces. After all, would that not make morality objective? No. For morality to be objective, it must exist independently of subjectivism. That is to say, it must be based on Logos, not Eros. Therefore, even if morality is derived from Pisces, it is not objective, because the Aions are governed by Archetypes, which are fundamentally Eros-based, because what the Archetypes fundamentally are are emotions and instincts. That is why the Romans and Greeks defied their emotions and instincts, and is the reason why they thought they were the playthings of the Gods, as the various Gods and Goddess that exist are, after all, nothing more than expressions of the autonomous wills manipulating mankind by possessing them. To therefore suppose that the Archetypes are "objective" is only true in the sense that anger or love are "objectively" true. It is true that both anger and love exist, but that is only because their existence is the result of man. If man did not exist, if he could not express these emotions, they would not be able to exist, as they do not exist independently of man, unlike math, which exists independently of man. As such, because morality is derived from emotion, it can therefore not be objective. Basically, it is simply a matter of "as above, so below." For man, morality is an expression of his desires that are ad-hoc rationalised by his ego to appear as if he is virtuous. For example, "I am hungry." Therefore, "I will eat a sandwich," because "I was hungry." For mankind, the morality of the current Aion is an expression of the current Archetype that is adhoc rationalised through secular laws and religious laws to appear as if embodying such laws is virtuous. For example, "I do not want to get murdered." Therefore, "murder is illegal," because "murder is wrong." In the case of the Aion of Aries, the reason why the Romans, who considered themselves descendants of Mars (Aries), valued honour, strength, and bravery were because these qualities were derived from Aries. Likewise, in the case of the current Aion, Pisces, the reason why we value introspection, reason, the Truth™, and compassion are because these qualities are derived from Pisces. Ironically enough, it is because we value the Truth™ that philosophers exists, not because the Truth™ in-of-itself is valuable. It is also for this reason that theologians have managed to convince themselves that the secrets behind the universe are contained in the Bible and have ascribed to it countless of baseless claims that have no basis in reality but are instead the result of them merely projecting their love for the Truth™ (or, to be more precisely, their love for their idea of Truth™, for they do not actually care for the Truth™ in-of-itself) unto the Bible simply because it claims to be the Truth™.
The reason as to why it is so vitally important to understand that the unconscious is Eros-based and that the conscious is Logos-based is because we need both: we need to be both able to play out a narrative that provide us with meaning whilst, at the same time, being able to satiate our thirst for knowledge. Currently, these are at odds with each other, because both religion and science think themselves to be Logos-based: they both believe themselves to be able to explain the structure of reality, and so when science turned its telescope from corporeal reality and directed its inquires towards Christianity and received no proper answer or evidence for the claims it had made for the past millennia, people stopped believing the Logos of Christianity, and, as a result of it, were left with no justification for their own existence, because 2+2=/=life is inherently good. To resolve this conflict, we desperately need a religion that is both true, as it would otherwise be rejected by science, and to give meaning to reality, as it would otherwise be useless. As already explained, the solution is not to return to Christianity or Paganism, because they are simply not true. Even if you want to claim it is all allegories or symbols of archetypes, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that such an excuse is simply not sufficient and that is has to be literally true, because playing pretend is not going to work any longer, lest you want someone like me, who enjoyed dissecting and critiquing things, to claim that it is no true, which you will not be able to deny, because you know yourself that it is not true. As such, I would like to propose that we should simply divide the Syzygy based on the unconscious and conscious: to allow our religion to be what it factually is and for our science to be what it factually is, for if we simply were to call a spade a spade, instead of pretending that the spade is something that it is not, no one would be able to claim that the spade is not a spade. By doing this, all the problems once facing us when trying to find a religion simply disappear, because the unconscious has not only been empirically proven exist by others, and in this very essay, which would mean that it is not only not possible to claim that it does not exist and that it does not affect the ego, it also gives us great stability and connects us to to the entirety of mankind, because the unconscious has always existed, has never changed, and will never cease to exist, which would mean that we would be able to relate to all of our ancestors and for future generations to be able to relate to us. In addition to all of this, due to its rather mystical workings naturally making reality seem to be more wondrous than it really is, it is impossible to claim that these workings are not true, since they are actually objectively correct. I suspect the reason why these workings naturally may seem mystical and why they are seen as interesting as they are is because we cannot consciously observe them, like we can observe reality, since the conscious mind cannot access the unconscious. As such, we are forced to use our imagination to conceptualise them, which naturally makes them seem more mystical because it is due to our imagination that things are given meaning, since it is fundamentally Eros-based, as explained in more depth in my other essay The Myth of Aliens. What this accomplishes is that instead of trying to claim that the exoteric is what is important, the esoteric becomes what is important; rather than claiming that the symbols in-of-themselves are what is important, what this accomplishes is that the meaning behind what those symbol represents becomes what is important. This makes it impossible to criticise the exoteric as a means of dismissing the esoteric, since it is not the mask that is important but rather what is behind the mask. For example, instead claiming the resurrection of Christ actually happened, it is better to first present the idea of that in-order to become better that which is holding you back must first die, which can, then, be represented in the resurrection of Christ. As such, it would, then, be impossible to try to dismiss the resurrection of Christ as false because it is not presented or treated as something true but rather as a representation of something that is true. This is important because it means that we can still use these symbols to give more colour to our mundane reality and to better explain the concepts by making them more concrete and digestible, without having to defend our use of these symbols, which means that these symbols and idols cannot die, which means that there can be no death of God.
The Silver Age for the current Platonic year began 12,000 years ago following the neolithic revolution, as that was the moment man devoured the fruit of knowledge, sealing his fate, and departed from being a hunter-gatherer to having been forced to adopt a lifestyle and morality more suitable for civilisation, since survival was suddenly no longer dependent on whether man was courageous enough to face danger head-on but came to instead depend on the social and overall security of the village, due to food and shelter being readily available without the need for either war with other tribes or hunting for food as a result of discovering agriculture. This was also the period during when the degenerate practise of worshipping fertility Goddesses came into fruition, which was not necessarily caused by agriculture, but in part influenced by the fact that their new founded morality reflected woman's morality. Perhaps the reason why all religions are so fundamentally rooted in herd morality is because they came to emerge during the Silver Age and onwards. 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 Socialists 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 later on 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 pave the way for Liberalism and Marxism, since Christianity, by its very nature, does not concern itself with the corporeal, due to its focus exclusively having been set on the Logos. Anyone, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or social status, is eligible to convert to Christianity so long as they accept the Logos. In other words, there is no "border," so to speak, as they say, which is why it is not compatible with National-Socialism or any other kind of proper Right-wing ideology, as the exact same mode of categorisation gives rise to the kind of insanity found in both Liberalism and Marxism, with everyone merely being an "individual," in the case of former, or a "comrade," in the case of the latter, which was further worsened by feminism abolishing any form of hierarchical difference between men and women, and democracy, which granted everyone equal voting rights, with the only requirement being to turn the required age. In more recent times, the internet has connected the entire globe to a shared forum, which has, to say the least, been an unprecedented disaster. In even more recent news, it seems as if it will soon be required to use an ID to access the internet in an attempt to control the population and curate public opinion, all under the guise of combating "misinformation" and "protecting the children." In the future, it will most likely 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, instead of them being able to do that externally via the smartphone. And that is both how mankind and the Aion of Aquarius, the Iron Age, 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.