Being and Nothing

Anti-dualist metaphysics of Evil

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

This is what I believe:

The way evil manifests physically into this world is by turning Something into Nothing. The reason you can't point to evil and measure it's evil atoms, is that evil is the absence of atoms.

Evil "doesn't exist", because Existence is antithetical to it. It is metaphysical, through and through, and since we cannot describe it directly, we can only outline the contour of it. And what is inside that contour? Technically, "Nothing".

Chaos, destruction itself, is indifferent. Evil is not. Evil has intention. It moves, and acts.

Evil wants to manifest into the physical world, but, being antithetical to Being, it is in paradox with itself. It cannot become physical, because if it did, it wouldn't. So what happens next is, it needs souls, minds, humans, to act out these impotent attempts for it. But it is still impotent, because for everything evil a human, does the paradox applies. The human is destroyed, but evil fails even when it wins, as it can never achieve ultimate victory, so the whole process just starts over from the beginning again. This is in a nutshell damnation, and the idea that the devil tempts. And this is how we can recognize evil, on our end of the metaphysical horizon. It is an insatiable hunger, because it's fundamental nature is paradox. It can by definition never be sated.

It is not merely destruction or chaos, but specifically an infinite hunger for, what I would call, metaphysical death.

This inability also scales down. You can recognize evil in yourself, because it is marked by not being sating. When acting on it, you can never quench it, never satisfy it. You only want more: It's drinking salt water. Clearly I'm talking about substance abuse and addiction here, but I believe the principle is universal, and applies to all things, like petty theft, lies, schemes. Rape and murder. Doing evil never sates, because of its ultimate metaphysical paradox nature.

Evil corrupts, degrades and perverts, because it cannot Be.

When LaVeyian larpers do their little sex rituals, this is both completely genuine evil, and completely fake. You don't actually get powers to shoot magical laser beams, or fly, or turn invisible, or even really hypnotise people. It is just empty mockery, mockery for its own sake, ritual mockery of Ritual, of the generative principle, og life, of Being. It is purely spite, and it is impotent and pathetic. Because evil is, in the end, pathetic. But they do do it. The distinction between Mr. BAP elite theory and Alex Jones elite theory is a distinction without a difference: They are satanic pedophile space wizards who makes deals with demons, they are impotent and pathetic skinnyfat untermenchen, motivated from the lowest and pettiest human drives, eating risotto.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

The world exists, it 'is', in the same way that evil 'isn’t'. Evil is a vacuum. It manifests not by becoming physical or replacing the good “inside” the physical, but by diminishing it, and removing it. A tear in reality opens to the Outside, and sucks it out, until the hole is plugged. I would compare it to the astronomical concept of a black hole, but I think it's more accurate to say it's the other way around, and the inspiration for that astronomical theory came from, is a kind of aesthethic replication of, the human experience of living in a moral universe. An artists rendition. The “heat death of the universe” is the picture of the total victory of evil, when there is nothing left to consume, pervert, and degrade.

That which we refer to as "Nothing" exists, and it has a nature. We can't ever look directly at it without going insane or dying, because by looking at it, it eats us. We can infer things about its nature through transcendental reason. What we can say about it is a translation, we could never describe it as it sees itself, if it sees itself at all. I don’t think it does. I think it is dumb and blind. Any description of its nature is, due to the limitations of our language and our faculties, an approximation. One thing we can say about it's nature is that it hates us.

You may have heard the expression "They can never build, only corrupt", about satanists or communists or someone like that. This is how that works. They, whoever they are, have aligned themselves with the antithesis to Being itself, or rather they have purposefully Malaligned themselves with Being, basically for no good reason. Just to do it. Just out of spite.

On a more encouraging note, another thing we can say about it's nature is, it is not strategic. It is not coordinated. This comes with being dumb and blind. It’s diciples are destroyed before it's opponents. Evil hates its own disciples more than it hates its opponents, and the lesser magi can never truly organize or benefit at scale, because the rift in reality will suck them in and destroy them first chance it gets. It cannot help itself.

The Christian insight that death is a flaw in the world, that death was brought into the world by Adams sin, is, I think, a good example of evils nature: Evil is, what we on our side of the metaphysical horizon, call Death. This is why I say Mr BAP's terminology of “mere life” and “higher life” is overly charitable to the former. What he calls 'mere life', I think a more accurate name for, is 'higher Death'. There are worse things than death, aye, let it be a higher Death. Or perhaps a Lower. Regardless, it’s death^2. 0^2.

We win nothing by downplaying the stakes: It is literally life and death.

This is also what I mean when I say something life "the reason all popular media and culture writing is unsatisfying today, is because it is being written by people who have no frame of reference outside being acolytes in a death cult."

It is also what I mean by “I think that in our lifetime there will be a major Christian revitalization across all levels of culture. It might be smaller or greater, it might be a slow burn private affair less so than a big public street parade. It might be labelled as something different, but I think sticking with the name Christianity is a good strategic move, and it's gonna last longer. But people might go with something different, like a “metaphysical revival” or “return of the Spirit”. Something like when we renamed 'Christendom' to 'the West'. Here I am optimistic though. It is very difficult to confront Golgatha, but I think enough are ready, and our job is to straighten the road and remove the conceptual, philosophical, and practical stumbling blocks. The mountain climber threads a path for others to follow.”

First will be last and the last will be first nerd, what are you gonna do about it?

There is nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing to gain, by trying to downplay or obscure that everything good in the world, any place in the world that isn't total misery and hell, came out of Christendom. And furthermore it's quite clearly a core tenant of the new testament, “anyone who is ashamed of my name, I shall be ashamed of on the day of judgement”. But the good news is Peter is still the best disciple, and even though we have collectively petered out for a while, I think the rooster is crowing. Real rooster crowing 3 times hours, who up.

The conclusion of Wittgenstein is not that metaphysics do not “exist”, that they aren’t “valid”, but that we can only speak about them poetically, not mathematically. Which is completely in line with Kant, and the reason he dubs the border between an-sich and the rest of us, a conceptual horizon. That’s poetic language. We cannot point beyond or over the horizon, but we can point to the horizon. We cannot see it's nature, but we can see it's outline.

Metaphysics and the kantian horizon

In the detective story of philosophy, the twist is, it wasn't a murder mystery after all: It was a cover up. A kidnapping disguised as a murder. And it goes all the way to the top.

The “question of evil” a la “Why does a perfectly Good God permit Evil” is dualist cosmology begging the question, the question’s premise presumes it’s conclusion. It presumes good and evil as two equal opposite alchemical substances. It’s a Wittgensteinian “wrong question” at best, and a case of “they do not want to win, they just want you to play their game” at worst. Accept the question, and you accept a dualistic cosmology. Game over.

I believe Substance is Good, and Evil has no substance. Indeed, God does not permit Evil to exist.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was being antithetical to Being, and being unquantifiable, tricking wordcels into thinking he doesn’t exist, by naming himself Nothing.