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.
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 originate 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 though 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. 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. For the record, to be perfectly clear on the matter, what I am attempting to do is neither to refute nor critique the validity of these ideas, i.e., whether the golden mean is true or not. This I am not interested in the slightest, except for when it pertains to Traditionalism. What I hope to achieve with this is to illustrate that philosophy has primarily not been the study of existence but the study of how to maintain society. Hopefully, it shall become more obvious to the reader as he continues to read why maintaining peace in society as the highest good of said society will inevitably lead the the death of it.
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 Christian notion that everyone is equal before God is nothing more than nihilism, as is the notion of universal love, that love is the answer, that God is love, and that evil, which is conceptualised as an act that inflicts suffering upon another, is something that can be judged on an objective, universal scale. To be as clear as is possible, for it is here we shall arrive at the crux of the matter as to why Christianity has been and still continues to be a devastating poison on the European psyche: morality is not objective and thus cannot be judged objectively; every time when there is a conflict of interest or a disagreement of sort, there has never been a single individual who has ever not regarded their own actions and alignment on the matter to be the objectively correct stance, because the only actual person who someone will ever care about is 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.
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 rather than to 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.
The term "champagne socialist" often times appear paradoxical to the uninitiated, but the fact of the matter is that it is not paradoxical in the slightest. After all, socialism is nothing more than the most civilised and efficient means of allocating resources to the most amount of people. It is for this reason that the most civilised people in society, the bourgeoisie, would support such an ideology, regardless of the fact that they would gain no monetary compensation for doing so but would rather only pay larger amounts of taxes, as they are the ones with the most capital and highest income. Moreover, it is for the same reason the cities, the central hubs of civilisation, typically attract Left-leaning individuals, whereas the countryside serves as a refuge for those who lean Right. After all civilisation is by its very nature Left-wing. It is the motherly delusion that all kids should all get along and play nice with each other instead of fighting. The countryside, on the contrary, is by its very nature Right-wing due to such a lifestyle being an authentic reflection of reality instead of an artificial and inauthentic imposition on nature by man. No clearer distinction between the two can be accurately displayed than between the different types of housing available. On the countryside, everyone lives in a house, with many living on farms or other suchlike ranch-style houses, far away from people and civilisation, and with no need to depend on anyone but themselves. In the cities, the vast majority rent an apartment. They do not even own their own home. They have only been allowed to temporarily reside there, in their apartment, which is merely a single fraction of a whole complex of other apartments, each apartment being dependent on another. In other words, to use an old saying, the Left is a herd of sheep, whereas the Right is the wolf. The Right does not depend on anyone but themselves to secure their own survival, whereas the Left does. The Left is entirely dependent on the complete and unwavering cooperation of the individual members of the herd in-order to survive. It is important to understand that each form of morality both has its advantages and drawbacks. No one is superior to the other. If the reader has a natural inclination to one, it is simply the result of his own personality. After all, it does not matter the means of ascertaining survival. The only thing that matters is to survive.
There are two kinds of people in this world. The former kind, 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 the latter type 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.
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?
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.
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.
Although evolution is generally accepted, with its only remaining opposition consisting of those who only deny it to justify their flawed beliefs, it is nevertheless not understood properly, as it is thought to continue indefinitely. But much like man is born and destined to die, so, too, is the universe destined to die, due to the fact that all life follows the same metaphysical pattern of a rise followed by a subsequent fall. Does it not speak volume, concerning the value of philosophy, when Steve from Microsoft tech-support, who documents the rise and fall of various YouTubers, has a much richer understanding of life compared to most, if not all, save a select few, philosophers? But I digress. What I have as of yet omitted to describe is the silver age, the transitional phase between the solar phase (Golden Age) and the Lunar Phase (Bronze Age), which also happens to be the phase that is commonly mistaken for the Golden Age by the Traditionalists, regardless of whether they would like to admit it or not. The Silver Age for the current Platonic year began 12,000 years ago with the neolithic revolution, since that was the moment man devoured the fruit of knowledge and departed from being a hunter-gatherer to having adopted a lifestyle and morality more suitable for civilisation. Indeed, the origin of herd morality began at the dawn of civilisation, as survival was suddenly not dependent on whether man was courageous enough to face danger head-on but came to instead depend on the social cohesion and overall security of the village, as food and shelter was readily available without the need for either war with other tribes or hunting for food due to farming. This was also the period when the degenerate practise of worshipping fertility Gods came into being, which was not necessarily caused solely by agriculture, but in part influenced by the fact that herd morality reflects woman's morality. Perhaps the reason why all religions are fundamentally rooted in herd morality is because they came to emerge during the silver age and onward. It will never cease to amuse me how ridiculous Traditionalism truly is. For how can they claim to be "Traditionalists" when all their beliefs are derived from doctrines that were created after the solar phase? Perhaps the reason Traditionalism is so blind to the necessity for a rise is because their dear Hinduism was created after it, in the comfort of it, which is the reason why the Hindu conceptualisation of the Golden Age is akin to a Socialist utopia. I hope the reader now understands how lost they truly are. But let us not dwell on them any longer. What overall characterises the Silver Age is Imperialism: the amalgamation of smaller tribes and cultures into a singular unit. During the neolithic revolution, it was the shift from an authentic type of morality to an inauthentic one due to the need for security. During ancient history, it was the shift from isolationism to expansionism and the consequent development of language due to the need for a universal means of communication as a result of the former.
The Silver Age began to transition into the Bronze Age at the beginning of the Aion of Pisces with the birth of Jesus Christ and was finalised the year the Roman Empire fell. The transition into the Aion of Pisces was the moment when the syzygy comprised of Logos and Eros began to polarise. Thus, the decline of European culture had begun to ensue. This was caused by the universalist nature of Christianity, which would subsequently pave the way for Liberalism, since Christianity, by its very nature, does not concern itself with the corporeal, due to its focus exclusively having been set on Logos, as understood by its more classical definition, the "hinterwelt." Anyone, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or social status, is eligible to convert to Christianity so long as they accept the Logos. There is no "border," which is why it is not compatible with National-Socialism or any other form of actual Ring-wing ideology. The exact same mode of categorisation is also to be found in Liberalism and Marxism, with everyone merely being an "individual" in the case of the former or a "comrade" in the case of the latter. Not to mention feminism abolishing any form of hierarchical difference between men and women, and democracy granting everyone an equal vote simply by turning the required age, as if the average 18-year-old even understands nor should concern himself with politics so early in his life. Furthermore, it is an undeniable fact that post-modernism is the most evil, nihilistic, and entropic philosophy ever construed, apart from anarchism and nihilism, due to the fact that it seeks to remove all binaries so that every object is simply a distilled unit with no reference to another. Not to mention the concept of deconstruction, which is simply a fancier word for destruction, and ought thus to be called what it truly is: entropy. In modern times, the internet has connected the entire globe to a shared forum, which has, to say the least, been an unprecedented disaster. Additionally, the advent of AI exponentially worsened the damage caused by photoshop with deepfakes and other suchlike image distorters and image generators, as no one is able to believe either video or photographic evidence at face value any longer, thereby plunging the internet further down the road of nihilism. It is possibly not an exaggeration to suppose that the conspiracy theorists were right. In the future, it will be mandatory to have a microchip implanted under the skin, which would allow the government to track the precise location of every person as well as to read their minds, not to mention that everyone's brain would be connected to the internet without any boundaries. And that is how both mankind and the Aion of Aquarius will end, with mankind devolving into a hivemind. In the end, although many would like to disagree, Marx was indeed right, but not in the way he had anticipated: the Socialist utopia as well as the Christian kingdom of God is not found in life but in death.