It is entirely in line with today's mentality to claim that evil does not exist and that there are no good or evil people, only "different" ones. Thus, evil does not exist—yet we have not solved our problems thereby. There is no metaphysical evil, and every manifested evil is relative, a mere matter of perception and worldview. In today's world, there is no room for such a Manichaean worldview, except perhaps in politics, but there we are dealing merely with the banality of evil.
My stance is that evil as a moral category does not exist; it is a matter of perception and context. However, evil as an ontological force—that is, a force that strives toward the destruction of being—most certainly exists. This is not evil in the religious sense, but rather a factor of consciousness entropy: a force that dissolves everything that exists. If we look around ourselves, we witness destruction on a grand scale; we see emptiness, brutality, and a complete lack of compassion across all modes of experience. One might say these are merely the consequences of a lack of awareness, and that the problem lies in mindless human beings rather than obscure archdemons, archons, and Ahrimans. All responsibility falls upon man; yet let us keep in mind that man can be—and mostly is—a mediocrity, which makes him a truly dangerous beast.
However, a human being can be radically different. Shall we consider the leader of genocidal fanatics merely "different," yet essentially good, simply because he is human after all? Is not every human born good or innocent, only to be ruined by wrong upbringing, childhood trauma, and a repressive culture? Shall we consider absolutely every human being a microcosm, a star, even when that individual acts as an agent of hostile occult forces? Will such a person be evil, or at least bad—or shall we continue to hold that he is neutrally and correctly "different," fundamentally equal to everyone else, rather than an intruder, an enemy who might best be removed from the face of the Earth? We can be polite and use alternative terms like psychopath or sociopath—something empirically measurable and ideologically acceptable, something that can be cured, repaired, or prevented through proper social engineering—yet again, this does not alter the ultimate outcome.
Every occultist must keep in mind the existence of beings who only outwardly appear human, but in their essence are not. There are those who, by the standards of vulgar science, are human beings, but by the standards of occult science are not; rather, they are higher-level or non-human beings who have arrived into human incarnation. These beings can be varied—benevolent or harmless—but they can also be predatory. On the other hand, we have human beings who have fallen under the dominion of predatory occult entities, or are simply possessed. Thus, we have multiple levels of heterogeneity within the human form. Nowadays, such assertions sound fantastic, imaginative, trashy, or insane; yet anyone who inherits a non-materialist worldview should not lightly dismiss such possibilities, since every advancement behind the material veil reveals a vastly different reality.
A skeptic would say this is galloping imagination, a hallucination induced by some explainable cause. The problem, however, is that the vulgar worldview does not consider real that which imagination perceives. Naturally, one's imagination can be manipulated, but it must be conceded that the possibilities of imaginative insights are practically limitless and can encompass even that which cannot be explained logically. It is true that whatever has not passed through the senses does not exist in the imagination either; yet it is equally true that in certain instances, the imagination can serve as a sense itself, and can even precede content that has yet to pass through the physical senses. For the modern world, there is no spirit, no god or gods, nothing beyond the senses—and if something does exist beyond the senses, it cannot be consciously perceived, just as we do not hear sounds or see light below and above our ordinary frequency range of perception.
For the purpose of this text, I will use the concept of evil as a collective noun or adjective to encompass the force (and its bearers) whose intention is to destroy the light within man, to destroy life, to inflict suffering, to tear the soul apart, and to eradicate humanity. I am not saying this is a clearly defined intention as interpreted by a religious worldview—that fallen angels or similar subtle entities possess a conscious, unyielding intention to utterly destroy us simply because they have gone mad. It is something different altogether. From my perspective, these are morally neutral phenomena whose very nature is inherently destructive to human beings. For example, radioactivity is dangerous to us, but that does not mean we should completely ban the use of nuclear energy or anything radioactive and declare it demonic! Fire can burn us, it can reduce us to ash; but shall we extinguish it and demonize it for that reason?
Therefore, it makes no sense for me to name such a destructive principle after some familiar term from religion or mythology. However, I imply something so radical in its essence that it tolerates no compromises, especially not with the human element and its essence. We are speaking of an ontological enemy of everything that humans are and can become. This does not mean we cannot communicate with that force, provided we abide by certain rules—just as we wear gloves or an asbestos suit to encounter fire, or a space suit to exist in outer space.
In essence, I am pointing here to a force that is the embodiment of absolute death—something akin to the second death, that is, an eternal death that leaves no possibility for reincarnation or existence on any other plane, no matter what that "otherness" might be. The transformation of being into non-being is the precise mode of operation of such a force. This is neither unimaginable nor impossible. The primary issue here is of a terminological nature. I would call such a force essential evil, or chaos as the principle of absolute dispersion. Consequently, the concept of the good would represent the essential life-giving principle. Thus we arrive at a dualism akin to Yin and Yang.
Naturally, someone would again say that it is necessary to balance these opposing tendencies within one's own being, to establish equilibrium. But allow me to ask: how is that to be done? How is that balance achieved? On that question, we can break our teeth and dull our swords arguing over which method is correct or superior, or adopt a mediocre stance that any method leading to that goal is good and that everyone should do whatever suits them best. Is there any worse swamp than that?
Here, I point to the option of radical action. Balance is achieved through its disruption. This is the principle of revolution. Disrupting balance stimulates the action of the disrupted principles, and that is precisely what we desire. We want a hurricane, not a calm sea. We want war, not peace—because revolutionary change is possible only under conditions of war. However, one must act wisely within it.
Related articles:
NOTE:
Originally published in Serbian. This English version is an AI-assisted translation of the original text.
No comments:
Post a Comment