Aesthetic Morality
The nature of life on this planet is diverse, and by that frictional. Like any other form of trend, aspects of man's variation compete for stronger existences: religions, cultures, factions, all which clash. In a primal environment, whatever force distinguishes man does so by allowing groups to properly identify themselves amidst the movement of others via cultural identities in both behaviour and aesthetic. These traits serve as more than just signifiers of identification, but celebrations and fortifications of that which represents what is good for the tribe—this being health and strength as represented in physical prowess and sexual desirability. By such values arises man's sense of beauty, determined in opposition to health's antithesis, decadence. This consciousness represents a gradient between what is understood to be right and wrong, a morality. Aesthetic doesn't just refer to visual beauty but the charisma of personality along with all else in man's drive beyond a need to pursue pleasure and avoid discomfort. In the name of beauty's right, indulgence must be set aside and pain endured. Failing to break out of indulgence's submission means being inactive of autonomous psychological movement, instead the human mind is tantalised by the movement of subconsciously sprung chemical rewards. Breaking the mould of indulgence's flow with a conscious volition is the only way man can truly be, every jolt from indulgence's peace originates from his will. This mode of being may not be one for the faint of heart, but it's either that or live solely to indulge, regardless of all which is beyond your lifespan: your tribe, your legacy, your own blood line and its strength in existence. For one tribe, having a sense of aesthetic superiority in beauty over another provides a right to domination. By this aesthetic morality, regardless of pain and enjoyment, be it to that of the beholder or the opposition, right is right. One aesthetic construct's understood superiority to another is gospel. This morality serves its purpose to human strength in providing health based direction through a right to domination over others, a strong fortification for any collective. In mankind’s infancy, health's value in its raw power would be defined through Paganism, personified through its gods with war's narrative leading suit in Odin or whatever regionally worshipped variant of such a head patriarch. As nice as war and lust may be, a human society cannot function solely by use of a morality based on right of aesthetic nobility, since no value other than a proclaimed righteousness exists to prevent those within its hierarchy from killing each other for whatever given reason. Between tribes and within tribes themselves, a moral right is required capable of preventing disputes on the individual level.
Defensive Morality
With the introduction of Christianity comes a new morality, a new gradient between right and wrong, a duality between pacifism and unprovoked aggression whereby aggression is warranted only against those who aggress first for no retribution in defence of prier aggression. As the Bible proclaims, love your neighbour as you would yourself, the golden rule of Christianity and its morality. This ethic serves as more than a method of maintaining social stability, it also serves as an outlet for one of aesthetic health's most sacred aspects, stoic reverence. Celebrating strength and domination is all well and good but such appreciations cannot exclusively inhabit the psyche without eventually running dry. Human beings need aspects of the divine in their lives; a time of silence and sincerity; something typically channeled through prayer and meditation. Having a sturdy sense of a value definite in its righteousness helps provide evidence for a right to domination's means by ethereal worth. Unlike aesthetic right, Christianity’s morality in its passive nature provides a inscribable source to sentimental thought, one which isn't subjective to the beholder of personally understood aesthetic rights, but unanimously respected beyond such differences. A Christian appreciation for mutual peace serves as an outlet for health oriented stoic divinity, however though Christianity has the potential to serve aesthetically healthy interests, technically its pacifistic doctrine may be practised outside of such standards. Christian morality developed over its Pagan predecessor's, one predisposed to favor nobility in health and beauty. On parchment, all which should determine innocence is whether or not people keep to themselves without unjustly hurting others. Abstract values of health based beauty are void within Christianity’s logically written morality and its interest in the code based quantity of human well being, however in the ancient world its love for peace was practised only within the default culture it arose from, inherently abiding by health based Pagan standards. People are taught to love their neighbour, however within a society where your neighbour could be defaultly stoned to death for being gay [executed for breaching a morally aesthetic standard in practicing what is considered to be low]. In theory, a polyamorous sect of Satanists or a 20th century hippy commune are morally correct within Christianity’s pacifistic ethic as long as they don’t hurt anybody, provoking only when provoked. Technically defensive morality cannot be applied simultaneously with Pagan aesthetic morality because beauty’s interest requires people smite their neighbours should they breach its regulations, regardless of whether or not they keep to themselves. In order to preserve itself, beauty is required to be an unprovoked aggressor, making it a villain under Christianity’s ethic. By word, Christian morality teaches only tolerance and pacifism in its ethic but does so within the foundations of glorious churches constructed in the name of beauty's power, upholding the aesthetic. Christianity was born within the default grounds of its Pagan predecessor's aesthetic lust. Through its evolution, Christian culture's signifiers of health cease to represent signifiers of health itself but human pacifism. Being good looking doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you strike first but still, it's commonly associated with the defence, accompanying Christianity’s moral right. Christian culture automatically aligns pacifism with aesthetic health and goodness, condemning aggression in an association with aesthetic morality's evil, decadence. Despite the fact that pacifism and beauty are not restricted amidst each other, aesthetic right always happens to be the unprovocative victim within Christian storytelling, never the first to strike.
A good example of a morality tale written from within Christian zeitgeist would be The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde: entailing one man's duality between a Victorian perception of good and evil. As an agent of good, Dr Jekyll is mannerly, clean and abstinent from conflict. Mr Hyde on the other hand not only peruses seedier London districts, but also happens to be the only character to exercise violence. Mr Hyde tramples a little girl in public and beats an old man to death, an old man who is described to be "Beautiful" or as old school Pagans would have it, aesthetically right. Jekyll and Hyde's moral dichotomy is that of its Christian foundations; it portrays beauty associated pacifism in opposition to aggression based decadence. Of course, given its providence in the west, this formula extends in its reach into the modern day. Consider a less dated example of media grounded in Christian culture, Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings' theme is of a Pagan residue, incorporating influences from Beowulf and the Icelandic sagas. The book is morally passive, however it is only by coincidence that the men and Elves of its narrative [agents of aesthetic health and beauty] stand in defence against Orcs and trolls. This trend of story telling results of an inherent association between pacifism and beauty. Aesthetic standards are so ingrained in the nature of western man that they aren’t morally apparent because traditionally, there has never been anything to contrast it—meaning there was no way it could be upheld as doctrine by record within the moral foundations which influenced modern culture. To aesthetically accustomed Pagans, wishing good will to all men could only become the highest value within a circumstance by which all men conveniently happen to be scared to death of being considered degenerate. By its written ethic, Christianity’s morality should allow such freedoms since they don’t hurt others; this contradiction of values was just never stumbled upon in traditional society because of how inherently pure it was in its aesthetic aspect. However, unchecked purity wanes over time. Consider another book which like Jekyll and Hyde is taught to children in English lessons as a morality tale, this being Lord of the Flies—a book which like its predecessors, depicts a portrayal of good and evil, this time having been written after the second world war.
Out of all the boys who crash on that island, the first agent of good we meet is Ralph, a character immediately described as "beautiful" with golden blonde hair. In addition to this, he is also passive in nature, shown later in the book as unable to endure the conflict which erupts. Ralph is purposefully built up at the start to resemble a classical agent of good in western literature, one also characterised in Dr Jekyll.
Representing evil is Jack: the leader of the choir boys, described as being ugly but also violent with a pocket knife to match. So far, the book's morality and aesthetic aspect seems to be on par with that of Jekyll and Hyde's, Lord of the Ring's and the rest of classical English literature; however there's a deviation to this custom which unfolds throughout Lord of the Flies' story. One of the book's protagonists (contributing to its force of good alongside Ralph) is the character Piggy, a fat illiterate child who gets bullied for being short and ugly. Despite being physically low like Mr Hyde or Tolkien's Orcs, Piggy represents pacifism and therefore good by the book's narrative. For the first time, we have a character who is both passive and aesthetically weak.
Through the book's progression, the choir boys rediscover primordial bloodlust as they start hunting the island's pig population. They replace their black choir uniforms with a different expression of power and intimidation, war paint. Now, unlike those before it, the book's moral dichotomy consists of decadence and pacifism in opposition to beauty and aggression. Maybe William Golding, the book's author associates health with evil for the sake of people like Piggy in their inability to level strength's passion. People like Piggy lack the strength to admit they are low in terms of Lord of the Rings' aesthetic morality, so they replace this morality with one based solely on pacifism, something anyone regardless of aesthetic creed can practice with ease. At this point, anyone can be morally good no matter how hard they work or how good they look. They can reject beauty for its association with aggression; in this case the slaughter of pigs by Jack and his black uniformed choir boys. The real reason Ralph is in the book is to represent what Golding understood to resemble a generic hero archetype in order to demonstrate the notion that Christianity's passive morality can be exercised outside of beauty. The book steers Christian morality away from the aesthetics of the beautiful as seen in Ralph, granting it to piggy. It’s no coincidence that Piggy resembles the type of obese chin rubbing atheists who would come to uphold freedom's morality fifty or so years later.
Unlike aesthetic beauty, pacifism is not a subjective value, meaning it can be upheld and properly understood in writing and doctrine; not felt but understood. As the aesthetic customs of a society fade away without having been consciously considered set in stone, the only recorded values remaining on paper are the merits of neighbour loving—leaving western culture's official morality solely as one between aggressor and defender, regardless of beauty's context and protection from human freedom. When passive morality expires its aesthetic aspect evaporates, resulting in humanism.
Love thy neighbour is maintained but characterised by We are the world or We are stardust. The aesthetic fat of Christianity’s ethic is trimmed, leaving pure utilitarian reason in dry efficiency towards non discriminatory human wellbeing. However, even with pure pacifism upheld as man's highest and only logical value, the undefined ghost of primordial beauty, the sheer force of its value by man's intuition allows it to guide culture's ethic even if unofficially. This is why so often in western culture we see evil circumstanced in unprovoked aggression and aesthetic ugliness. But aesthetic ugliness doesn’t exclusively battle health with aggression, in fact doing so allows it to be morally condemned by both Christians and Pagan alike; as such, ugliness primarily takes heads passively under defensive morality's protection. As long as the Orcs from Lord of the Rings don’t hurt anybody, they should be considered the good guys according to the morality of the Elves, but their aggression was never the real reason they were despised as villains. Subconsciously, and outside of a defensive morality, audiences hate them for being stupid and ugly creatures reflecting mankind's lowest potentials. Moral righteousness’s aesthetic aspect is an unofficial context, but it is everything which separates the human experience from that of machines following the logic of human indulgence's efficiency.
Growing up in a middle class school environment, all anybody really wants is to come across as nice; someone who people can feel comfortable around; someone who has the approachable charm of a person who can smile amidst a crowd and laugh at the odd shitty joke every now and then. In living within the order of a society grounded in Christian morality, the key to this approachability is pacifism, the currency of moral value in western culture. Who doesn’t want to be looked up to as a nice guy or a potential shoulder to cry on? Manifesting this archetype means more than just being morally tolerant; it serves as an aesthetic; the passive aspect of the aesthetically higher gradient. Due to Christian influence, being nice is automatically associated with being aesthetically pretty. Being handsome and fair should be reminiscent of every stoic good guy who kills Orcs or any other manifestation of ugliness in the media western kids grew up with. Being a good guy makes you feel warm and pure on the inside with an assurance that you are morally safe. You aim to follow the example of Jesus christ—manifesting his archetype; that of the good guy; upheld in its moral and aesthetic value as seen in every Aragorn from Lord of the Rings or Luke Skywalker. I grew up at a time in western culture when anime was starting to become more mainstream amongst regular people. Japanese culture has no Christian influence, but it does have a sense of moral pacifism and a consciousness as to how this aesthetic can be used socially. As seen in their culture, the Japanese are obsessed, fixated even on the high school experience, its narratives of friendship and romance whereby the good guy archetype [or the “protagonist”] finds himself laughing with classmates under cherry blossoms amidst a sun bleached filter. In primary interest to young Japanese men, what comes with the good guy archetype is being fawned over by bug eyed cartoons of anime schoolgirls, which to its demographic signifies an admirable reputation. Here, outside of pacifism's moral context we see a raw power struggle for social familiars and attention from the opposite sex. In a civilised environment, pacifism is just the oil which greases pursuit to such attainments.
To a demographic of predominantly nerdy and introverted young men, being called senpai by a member of the fairer sex characterises an aspiration some kids would smash each others inhalers for. The privilege of being a good guy, resembling the protagonist is indeclinable of its prospect. The heart power source of this personality is its morality, something which beholders of the title of good guy must uphold and abide by through exercising pacifism along with all the freedom this morality allows. With both handsome charisma and reliable kindness the protagonist stands to the admiration of those around him as an agent of good.
In having an understanding of what good and beauty is, Japanese culture also has a pretty good grasp of its opposite. With the good guy archetype comes a common characterisation of its negation to match, one in contrast to the protagonist and his realm of youthful kinship. In addition to fixating on the wholesome tranquility of an idealised high school setting, the Japanese are equally in tune with what they understand to be its tyrant, tending to be characterised by rape and sexual trauma. The crazy slant eyed, irradiated bastards are obsessed with it; it's everywhere in their culture and story narratives because they know that any aesthetic innocence of a passive nature is vulnerable to raw domination. This understanding is best symbolised within the nature of rape itself, which is elementally the moral bane of the protagonist and any other manifestation of the good guy archetype. Of course, the raw violation of say the protagonist's love interest isn’t enough, aesthetic goodness must also be dominated.
The good guy archetype doesn’t consist exclusively of moral pacifism; the good guy archetype consists of two components and moral pacifism is only one of them. Moral pacifism serves the interest of the archetype's second aspect, which is aesthetic goodness. Pacifism is upheld only as a method of sporting aesthetic piety and stoicism. Manifesting the good guy archetype represents more than being a moral pacifist, it is aesthetic health in its passive form. Pacifism is an ideal frame of reference for those who cherish understandings of what is good but the true passion of this interest comes from its aesthetically transcendent aspect. Ideally, the Good Guy shouldn’t consciously recognise such preferences, because their shouldn’t be anything to contrast them, only a duality between peace and aggression; this idea of a moral dichotomy between tolerance and intolerance was always based within the default assumption that people wouldn’t be weak and indulgent of spirit, but nothing in passive morality's resume says anything about being healthy, good looking, charismatic or anything less then a brain in a skull looking for nice sensations. Under pacifism, all anybody need be in order to achieve moral righteousness is positive and tolerant. In theory, anybody can be a good guy, from the OG aesthetically humble Good Guy archetype to the shallow hedonists who brows your girlfriend’s OnlyFans. As long as they too are nice guys, on paper our old friend the protagonist [the classic depiction of the good guy] is no greater or worse than the slobbering wallowers who share his morality; all who abide by it are equal in virtue. In this, the protagonist should recognise a distinction between himself and the majority of those around him. Whereas he starts off with a passive morality within the default grounds of aesthetic standards, others lack even an ability to sense the merit of those values. As much as the aesthetically higher pacifist likes feeling good about being nice to others, there's no point in being kind and tolerant if all it amounts to is sharing standards with low energy; weak willed happy go lucky; indulgent consumers. Morally, there's no such thing as Higher Passive, because you can't have standards of an aesthetic nature while respecting everybody's right to do whatever the hell they want at the same time, only in a circumstance where nobody is low to begin with; at which point, only unwarranted aggression is a sin; a scenario in which society easily drifts from in its decline. People with higher instincts in aversion to apathy embrace the ethereal virtue they perceive in pacifism, but the wholesome and stoic interest which attracts the good guy to passive morality, its innocence has every right to be raped and defiled in the name of freedom's ethic and the pacifism which protects it. This morality may sit well with most, but for someone who has higher preferences and hot blood beating through their veins; to those who hold an inherent passion—goodness transcends pacifism. At this realisation, the protagonist must fortify Higher Passive’s original aesthetic interest, removing the constraints of tolerant morality to represent such aesthetically healthy energies for what they are by their inherent beauty and not for the sake of a philosophy which condones all the horrors of such beauty's defilement. Then, the Protagonist can start stacking Bastards to Specialist from Persona. Defensive morality, whether in a high or low default environment is a method of morally combating forces of aggression, but sometimes decadence doesn’t strike first. Typically, it operates passively—providing health no moral right to fight back by the code of who started it. In this scenario, the only aggressor; the only agent to strike first can be aesthetic beauty in the interest of health's protection. Pacifism cannot fully serve aesthetic interests, because to beauty's agents, evil descends in more forms than aggression.
Lower-Passive’s Offensive
(Humanism)
How many people reading this have parents who love them? Hypothetically it comes down to a last resort that given the choice between you and someone else’s, they'd kill the other in order to allow you to live. But the love in that comes not from an admiration determined by attributes, but from an instinct to cherish whatever spawn delivered. Had they given birth to say Ed Sheeran, they'd be subject to the same modicum of love. In the scenario of swapping places with Ed, adopting his background as he adopts your's, in the hypothetical of who your former parent would choose to let live, guess who’s going down. Love predetermined by birth is definable only by whoever happens to be born; it has no essence and no preference beyond atomised circumstance. The same applies for any love based on chemical emotion and not aesthetic substance, even be it a family member who contradicts the aesthetic preferences of those subject to a love for higher standards. I refuse to pretend that the true nature of love is fickle, because I know by sensation it runs deeper and has more meaning as evidenced by its passion. There are values higher than the individual; love can be real if grounded in values transcending atomised circumstance.
Expressing love regardless of aesthetic transcendence may not come from an organic and legitimate emotional appreciation; it may be hollow and inauthentic, but it does allow those who behold it to thrive in broader cooperation with those around them. It allows those who seek pleasure and social warmth to signal virtue in a falsely proclaimed love for all of humanity. Real love is restricted only to what is authentically judged by aesthetic preference; having an extroverted “love” for all means for those who seek comfort, having a useful reputation in a social environment. What love, true love really is is an appreciation for elemental values beyond specific individuals, something you will maintain even as the last person on earth with nobody else to praise your virtue; something you are truly willing to suffer in silence for. In order for "love's" agents to achieve as much social help as possible, true love in its discrimination must be inactive within the mind so more people can be absorbed into a synthetic appreciation; once more, quantity over quality. Such "love" is held not for substance but potential to the indulgence such love may provide. It does not discriminate between the aesthetic nature of those who can generate for the lover his indulgence—doing so would be inefficient. It embraces universalism, prising love for all; higher quantities of people over the exclusive value (aesthetic) of few. In irony, universalists cannot love universal values beyond given circumstance, only individuals in their masses. Preaching we are the world is not done out of love but "love" for those who may help jerk off the lover, all in their universal masses. On the other hand is the elusive else: to love another for qualities beyond how robotically nice they can appear in a social environment, be it those little quirks no one else can appreciate or some unique way of thinking. In their passion for another's traits so exclusive to their own, such a person may not feel comfortable with the idea of sharing their significant other in a polyamorous relationship. Proponents of universal love may condemn this with scorn as prejudice in rejection of a relationship incorporating a higher quantity of people. Within their own internalization, they will make sense of such sentiments as hateful for passing down higher quantities of human love; such people are selfish for not wanting to share a parson they themselves love with anyone else; "if you can't share someone with others, that's not real love, it's possession," which it is. Those "selfish," the singularly exclusive are in fact possessive, as hell, but that's because love is selfish in nature, exclusive in its authenticity and possessive with a ferocity. On an elemental level, loving something is defined by the implication that you don't love things which aren't it. Truly loving *something means loving *something, not everything. Polyamory and universalism in general may incorporate more measurable flesh, but love isn't something which can be measured or quantified as a gradient; love, solid love is a set preference for set qualities which cannot be changed or enhanced by number as can the number of people the universalist may claim to love. They may call the exclusive selfish, but what is more selfish, loving someone for reasons exclusive to them, or loving everybody for no value other than that they better open opportunities for social warmth devoid of a transcending appreciation? They may claim to love all around them, but only for indulgence's sake, and can indulgence be loved or pursued coldly? In a sense, those who would keep the cherished to themselves can be the only ones who aren't selfish, because the values they share with said person transcend circumstance, existing beyond the individual and beyond the self. Such people are representatives of the values they love, people who in preserving another for themselves will die for them and the value they manifest. The universalist may site professionalism to the advantage of their self image, othering the preferentially exclusive as abstract in rejection universal human love. To them, this rejection is an instance of their reluctance to take things seriously—Universal brotherly love is serious, "We are the real, profession people; We take things seriously; What's your problem bro?" That's cute, but to a degree as serious as an ultimatum between life and death, the universalist will not die for one of the billions of people who allow them to achieve a nicer reputation—but for the love of their transcendent value, the exclusive will—then we see who takes life seriously before they become compost.
Representatives of any morality need an origin of value to evidence the legitimacy of their ethic—there must be an original passion. In aesthetic morality this would be health based beauty. For those secular who align themselves with Christianity’s ethic, the clue is in the title: humanism. In this, good-will is the currency of virtue, and all you have to do is be a human to warrant it. Supposedly, as their own philosophy proclaims, the interest of this morality is universal providence; respect for humanity and love for mankind. I personally believe that this is a crock of shit. It is impossible for any one man to know true love for even a single person they don’t know other to be human. What exactly is so hot about being a homosapien is ambiguous, but there's and entire philosophy sharing the name. Humanism is allegedly prefaced by a love for humanity, but it's understanding of what love is is one based not on emotion but internalized logic: to them, love is the positive of a utilitarian moral code. It's drive is not stimulated by any known passion for a form, instead it claims to love all, viewing individuals not by quality but quantity—people as numbers comprising of a collective called humanity. The moral logical end of Humanist morality is to make as many people as happy as possible. To them, “love” for all mankind is evoked not by a feeling but evidenced by an understanding of what is correct by humanism's code. I love agents of health and wonder because I feel them to be beautiful; they love pacifism because they understand that logically "it is" or at least should be the means to the greatest amount of human happiness. Humanists analyze good and bad as code, and not by the emotional power which only a value beyond just being human can evoke. Humanists claim to love everybody; every digit on the planet, but it's hard to actually feel for the reduction of a unit amidst billions when its only merit is being human; so even with Imagine playing officially in the background, it's still easy for edgy nihilists to say things like: "no lives matter" on Twitter with a picture of a skeleton holding a gun. This humanitarian mentality facilitates the growth of its only understanding of evil, the reduction of units. Caring about everybody, 7 billion people is a trait of the mind redundant to care about anybody.
Once internalized under this mentality, instances of horror can then be trivialised for entertainment, through endless documentaries and film adaptations marketed towards the fascination of its spectators. To allegations of disrespect, the spectator can express their grievances as much as they want, but at the end of the day, not to a feeling, nay for the reduction of one or any sum of units. Condolences are expressed on paper and so continues the phenomenon of girls on Youtube vlogging about rape and murder cases with millimetres of makeup.
Take the case of Issei Sagawa: the Japanese dwarf cannibal who murdered, raped and ate a young Belgian woman only to be let off charges due to complications. Presuming that all human life is equal, the only horror to be found in this case should be the fact that a unit was reduced consequential of another. From what I can gather, what killed her was a quick shot to the head, so the circumstance should be akin to another; people die everyday. Of course, as your intuition should be irking to you, there's a deeper context to this immorality: this being that a healthy good looking young woman’s life was cut short for some malformed degenerate's stimulation. What we establish here is the case's morally aesthetic context, aspects which should be void in the mind of a rational-man by assumption of human equality. Remember, they are *humanists. They can only lament the victim as a human and not as a young woman, a Belgian or an agent of health and beauty. To them, all we have in the Sagawa case is one unit nocking off another; either of the same measure (human); like a fish eating another fish. To them rejecting human equality is unethical; to do so is to be a demon with no regard for human life—which is true, because being human isn’t enough; humanist morality is utilitarian, meaning intent to calculate and actualize the highest quantity of human happiness achievable—there is no outcome holier. All human life is equally precious—so the lives of 300 fat autistic men on welfare should outweigh the life of one bright young woman from a good community. Can't it be said that the enjoyment of 300 obese men masturbating in their apartments outweighs the enjoyment of one person? By a morally utilitarian calculation, they collectively have more of a right to exist. Appropriately, anyone who chooses the right of the girl's right to live over their's should be socially reviled as a genocidal maniac. All humanists can say is that "it's sad when someone dies, but it was her or 299 more; because that's all they see the girl as; a person, one equal to every law respecting creature who qualifies as Homosapien. At this point in the hypothetical it's the job the intellectuals to say: “did you know that by supposing a question like that, what you’re actually doing is facilitating the justification of breeching human rights?”—which is exactly what i'm going for; the hypothetical isn’t supposed to operate subversively, it's meant to establish an ultimatum between Aesthetic Morality and the utilitarianism. Those who reject the latter may be genocidal demons, but how hollow do you have to be to not care about anybody (to discriminate), how vacant to kill the girl to save the others, how soulless? At the end of the day, robots don’t have souls and humanists don’t abide by feeling.
Expired reverence
For the average joe, being morally tolerant is easy, not in compassion but because they don’t have a horse in any race to begin with, no hatred in defence of a value whatsoever. Traditionally, in Christian culture the implications of great horrors would be mourned with importance, subconsciously for the sake of aesthetic defilement and not just because of a reduction in the population. After the people's sensation for aesthetic value has expired, the tradition, reverence in the face of destruction remains, but hollow. The spirit is gone; what's left are the imprints of human outrage, those which during the age of feeling would have been reserved for the most grievous defilements of aesthetic innocence. These older expressions are maintained and upheld with a regard, albeit synthetic, in the name of those too decadent who fall. If say somebody decided to pull the trigger on the 300 fat guys, with audacity the representatives of such a group maintain to uphold the tradition of detriment in the name of what they are—despite in likelihood, not actually having any pride in being obese. Nevertheless, the indulge to mimic classical reverence in the empirical assumption that even if they know they feel nothing, logically they have an equal right to pretend as if they do—this will be done for the sake of victimhood's rewards, whether enacted from the conscience or sub-conscience of those seeking the attention. Expired reverence is repulsive because those who take advantage of it don’t actually feel emotion in its practice, but have the power to condemn you as hard hearted if you're smart enough to se through it. They Insultingly mimic the legitimate lament of aesthetic good's defilement, using it as a means to acquire reparations. Despite their repugnancy, it's impossible to condemn them because to do so is to play the role of apathy against their synthetic reverence; giving them every right of plastic sincerity against you. They maintain a sense of divine legitimacy and irrefutable professionalism in their humanitarian ethic, even when the substance; the passion of such morality has long expired. Over feeling, right, signal, code and logic are the key. This is why when classic liberalists and chin rubbing atheists on Youtube write essays about the philosophical connotations of infantile Japanese media, they'll title it something like: Boku no Pico (A critical analysis).
This feign to professionalism of walls of theory and eloquent presentation may work on some, but they don't get it from me. Life is a lot simpler than they make it out to be. For one, their intellect is just and age old tool to feel important in a world which is more physical than academic. The classes of many civilizations' easy eras have flexed intellect before, they will in the future; they all go back to the same compost in the end. Before then, they get their little time of credentials and blue checkmarks and books they've read. Of academic worth, signified legitimacy replaces actual feeling, because no matter how devoid of substance an interest may be, as long as its driver abides by humanist constructs, they by right may feel entitled to legitimacy. This sense of professionalism may help intellectuals feel justified in their academic endeavours, but it has no emotional origin; its sheen of legitimacy is something which the aesthetic lacks use for—because the values of health and beauty can speak for themselves in their merit alone; they don’t need a fancy title or certification; they don’t care what the world thinks because what they are is already evident. Aesthetic power doesn’t humbly provide to the masses a certificate representing legitimacy; it demonstrates its prowess, leaving pretentious contemporary academics to perceive as they may—however they take it.
Restricting moral values to that of human wellbeing regardless of the aesthetic is convenient for the forces of decadence, because in it, health has no written right against such forces; no fortification. As long as man is happy, any aesthetic values are up for grabs because morally, they don’t exist. In practice, all this really means is that man's base submissions dominate the higher. Raw unseasoned pacifism knows conflict between man's comfort and man's discontent, but has no concern for the progression and conflict of aesthetic trends; what people called call Memetics. These are conflicts which rage outside of humanitarianism's eye. Whether or not man has the right amount of indulgence morally due, its flow progresses regardless. In terms of the humanitarian, being passive means being passive, end of story. However in terms of memetics, pacifism is a subversive and extremely affective tool of aggression. You may want to gouge decadence's eyes out regardless of whether or not it strikes first, but it's impossible to condemn an altruist, a humanist or a nice guy, because no matter how decadent and venal they may be, however much they offend given standards, how can you condemn someone who hasn't hurt you? What could be more of an affective blackmail in exchange for the death of aesthetic health? Such ransum is an asset to passive decadence; its most powerful weapon and it doesn’t even shed a drop of blood; it makes those on the side of aesthetic health shed their's in exchange for being spared the moral persecution of being an aggressor against that which doesn’t just abstain from aggression but is prepared to show you kindness—the coldest, most ruthless aggression; something only a rejection of defensive morality and a faith in the aesthetic can even stand to combat. Then still, the offensive is condemned to be a villain of history with decadence standing in defence of its advances. That is the unforgiving ruthlessness of pacifism; beauty perishes before it; that is the tyranny of "love".
I believe that a degree of people have the spirit to conserve preference in favour of a definable love over the emotional compliancy of decadence's blackmail; and who can really blame them for that?—Unless by your morality you legitimise the chemically induced love of every girlfriend to a lousy partner; every victim of Stockholm syndrome to their kidnapper; and every rape victim to their forced offspring, who can blame them for that?
Maintaining Higher-Passive
after hate ascension
If you are the type of person who has an interest against the decadent but you still fancy yourself a nice guy, it's only a matter of experience before you realise that you can't have both at the same time. In putting the aesthetic before the well being of those who would impinge against it, the higher minded betray the Good Guy archetype's morality, embracing unprovoked aggression to defend the sense of goodness which attracted them towards pacifism in the first place. This transition of morality shouldn’t leave the higher minded feeling too displaced, after all, pacifism is by no means aesthetic righteousness’s only construct. Recall back to aesthetic morality's Pagan roots and you will find that the values of health sit a lot easier with aggression's means. In seeing aesthetic innocence’s vulnerability at the hands of human freedom, the good guy archetype transitions through hate ascension, adopting a primordial mentality in a fortification of the aesthetic, moving to the right side of the moral preference compass: Higher Aggressive. Higher Aggressive energy serves masculine youth well; it militaristically fortifies the values of health and beauty, allowing its beholders to harness a lust for domination over the decadent, a blood ecstasy manifested in the heat of conflict and physical prowess. Whether those who defile aesthetic goodness aggress or not, it's going to be in the interest of the higher minded to keep them under the heel of health and goodness at all costs.
Living with this philosophy in practice means you can't really play the role of the good guy anymore, because you no longer represent a defensive; instead you are the aggressor. No one starts off Higher Aggressive; Highness is prefaced in association with pacifism; when this value fails the aesthetic, aesthetic value takes matters into its own hands, becoming aligned only with the blood ecstasy of unprovoked aggression. A controlled duality between stoic reverence and unleashed violence is present in human nature; both energies maintain each-other's flavour in contrast. Either has its time in the psyche; neither can continue without the other. Traditionally this duality's passive aspect would be channeled through Higher Passive Christianity (the Good Guy archetype). Morally, the higher minded cannot fully represent it's passive ethic, but that doesn’t mean they have to abandon the persona, especially in a world which incentivises good will to progress socially. The Higher Aggressive disillusioned by passive morality can yet find use for the good guy avatar as he reserves purer sentiment internally. Higher Aggression leaves its deliverer morally vulnerable to the persecution of lower pacifists wielding righteousness within a defensive. Why leave yourself vulnerable when they can drift through academia with the old Good Guy persona as a weapon of choice, subtly sowing higher subversion. If people are sheep then what the higher minded wants to be is a wolf in sheep's clothing, harnessing the Good Guy persona amidst a sea of pacifism. Ascertain the customs of the new morality while harnessing primordial energy with a persistence. Pacifism, even if insincere may represent higher man in the face of evil, partly as a method of deception and a tribute to the wholesome—that which would have served use in an environment free of the decadence pacifism allows.
Lower-Aggressive’s
Offensive
Something that's always bothered me in modern media is the glorification of nihilistic violence directed towards agents of innocence and beauty, both of which are commonly characterised within the same circumstance. This quintessentially manifests in what is literally called the torture porn film genre, something popularised by directors like Eli Roth in the 2000s—competitively working to spit over what is understood to be considered pure and innocent and good for the sake of doing so. I believe that this glorification of horror is and always has been a tool of the weak. Growing up in the school environment, a meek and physically repulsive introvert may be unable to hold their own in a fight, but they can hold domination over the stomachs of those easily disgusted. Young men naturally seek the means to power, something that if not in strength and charisma can be harnessed in shock value. This is a tool utilised not just by scrawny undesirables, but decadence in general through its aggressive aspects. It's key in understanding Lower Aggressive’s power to know that it generates gravity through embracing no set value, but whatever society reveres; regardless of what this happens to be.
Western society's social environment operates via a consistent separation between what is socially safe and unorthodox. This is a custom stemming for Christian culture and its passive morality. The problem with this construct of puritanism is that like shock value horror directors, it regards what's safe and what is to be considered unorthodox not by set values, but whatever happens to be perceived or understood contemporarily as such. People abstain not from what they feel is bad but from what they understand to be classified as bad within the current zeitgeist. Christian culture's sense of evil is in the name: deviance; deviation from given standard. Within the culture Eli Roth grew up in, bad is characterised generally by two things, sex and violence. To this custom, their exists no potential virtue in either. Instead, modern morality’s good as influenced by Christian culture exists in raw pacifism outside of any aesthetic context; in it, good is represented exclusively by neighbour loving and warm feelings. Contrary to this, in aesthetic morality and its Pagan history, both sex and violence represent agents of power, tools of domination held within health's hands. Sex represents beauty, intimacy, physical health and domination; violence represents domination over decadence; both have potential to a moral good. In Christianity’s infancy, this aesthetic intuition maintained its influence within the culture of its prior Pagan beholders. Sin was characterised by decadence; not just ill will to one's fellow man, but an underlying insult to a higher power; gods wrath would see to its destruction. In the modern era and in a need to understand itself as right within a morally passive society, aesthetic health and beauty is restricted to association with pacifism. Meanwhile aesthetic beauty's aggressive aspects, sex and violence belong to the realm of the unorthodox. Aesthetic good is distilled of its aggressive aspects, and relegated amidst any decadence still revered by Christian culture, leaving good solely akin to pacifism, a vulnerable form of purity. Within a scenario where aesthetic goodness is aligned with pacifism and decadence with aggression, you can imagine which side has the upper hand in appeal to young men. It wasn’t always like this though, the earliest known visual depiction of the Christian devil, the quintessential manifestation of evil was depicted to be a skinny goblin-like creature with a swollen stomach, representing the opposite of physical health and beauty, what in terms of human physique would be considered low. This characterisation would later be replaced by William Blake's Red Dragon painting: featuring a muscular, more intimidating figure evoking power more so over disgust, contrary to its predecessor.
In modern culture, Satan is typically depicted with a muscular physique, something which is ironically a signifier of health, something which should be considered holy. Not only this but the sacred purity of female beauty in its power is demonised along with a goat head and pentagram to match.
Christianity’s ethic, more so within modern culture is of defensive morality. Typically the only people who aggress without provocation are those with power, a value cherished by aesthetic morality—meaning that as a value it must be condemned by Christianity’s passive characterisation of what good is. The same is applied in use of the pitchfork; even though wielding a weapon [an instrument of power] has never typically been a signifier of evil in human culture; just look at Saint George. Modern Christian social intuition on the other hand absorbs aggression's power and sex’s reverence within its prohibition; man's most powerful passions; elemental aspects which so basically incorporate into the being of what it is to move through time. In this, man is granted no morally acceptable outlet to exercise the passion of these sacred energies; all and that of their resemblance is thrown under the classification of sin.
This is convenient for those decadent looking to harness power through shock value, because Christian morality provides cultural grounds with sure footing for kids looking to manifest power and masculine ferocity through dominating the peace of others accustomed to the orthodox; it allows the weak to mantle the type of don’t touch me because I’m dangerous instinct which humans share with blackberry plants, only this danger is signified by an embrace of what society deems socially impure—this being aggression and anything remotely sexual. Traditionally, within Christian society's foundation, man's weaker indulgences would exist, however to be shunned, punished and removed from standard; in modern culture, this custom is maintained but inverted whereby all which is perceived to be unorthodox is condoned and celebrated. The ghost of man's repression from these vices remains in modernity to be liberated and explored—which is where all that gay anime shit comes from.
The fire of these forbidden values, instead of being understood appropriately via their power, is replaced by a different form of power, this being circumstantial shock value. The weak wield sex and violence as an aspect of terror against societal “puritans”. Pious Christians and all who resemble them are food to be torn apart and horrified by glorifications of whatever the unorthodox happens to be. With this, if some scrawny outcast like Eli Roth wants to be a tough guy, all they need to do is post porn to a sfw discord server or maybe on an Instagram meme account; so rises the age of decadence’s advantage through shock value, something utilised by edgy pedophiles like Shรคdman and exhibited in endless documentaries glorifying serial killers on platforms like Netflix and Amazon.
In a society which condemns health's most illustrious aspects to the realm of unorthodox, it’s no mystery why the radical youth of a culture liberated from conformity in the 60s gravitated towards Christianity’s understanding of evil. Satanic symbolism became a staple of metal genres for a reason. Between the ripped demon wielding the pitchfork and the old man with the beard, any normal testosterone pumped young man should naturally fail to adopt the latter. This romanticism would be confined in association with Christian culture's decadent prohibitions. Aesthetic power and health becomes an ally of decline and aesthetic weakness. Decadence is equipped with both aggression's aesthetic power and shock value's gravity in opposition to a pacified sense of moral good. Making pacifism the core value of your morality and aesthetic makes it as vulnerable as a pregnant cow to a pack of wolves. The lower dredges of society exist to harness power through tyranny in alliance with whatever happens to be considered evil, and when society renders sex and violence to be evil; decadence has two of the most powerful drives of human movement at its disposal. All that masculine energy meant to be channeled into productivity is diverted into not what evokes power but an indulgence in what is understood to be forbidden. Passive morality and its evil are two aspects of the same construct, one which gives it's understanding of bad an advantage; love based synthetically puritanical good, even in it's fortification by nature is doomed to be pray for its constructed opposition. You can shun moral deviation and praise the forces of synthetic purity all you want, but that's what decadence lives for, to be illustrious in its forbidden reputation and powerful in its sin. Being rejected by society means being feared by society. When the decadent parade their sin, all the synthetically pure can do is tell them that what they do is wrong, however wrong not for their sake but the sake of those on the receiving end of their shock value. All this does is perpetuate the interest of the decadent to celebrate evil. The only true way to slip Lower Aggressive is to disarm it of its shock value. Synthetic purity's customs are so averted to aspects of sex and violence that they will revere it regardless of whatever form it takes. This is why Eli Roth is able to generate gravity in making torture porn; however violence isn’t a characteristic of sin under aesthetic morality; it's simply an aspect of nature with neutral potential to all ends. In the hands of health, it is an aspect of power which has been casually depicted in stories and media for centuries through folk tales of knights slaying dragons to heroes butchering hordes of Orcs. Even today, it's socially acceptable for young boys to dress up as knights and play with wooden swords—toys representing instruments designed to cut through muscle, break bone and snap tendons. In its passion, sword wielding intact with the violence it represents has heroic potential. Violence and the destruction of the decadent is an ecstasy home to the higher minded. The energy which the gullible use for shock value does not belong to the weak. Heat and lust belong to aesthetic morality's good. Once society judges by aesthetic value—removing violence's gravity, all which remains in Lower Aggressive’s arsenal of shock value is decadence, or what in higher aesthetic terms is weakness as seen in the earliest depiction of the Devil. For instance, a film like Hostel merely consists of human beings devoid of higher purpose mutilating each other like insects; why didn’t Eli direct a film like 300? The sword which pierces the flesh of Persians is equal to the knife mutilating victims of Hostel, the only difference is that 300’s violence isn't boring whereas Hostel, once the gravity of its violence is removed finds itself rendered dry and devoid of meaningful flavour. With violence universalised, who wants to watch a film about a bunch of nobodies killing each other in a rundown building when they can watch a war band of Spartans do so for the honour of a homeland? This also begs the question, why is Netflix producing endless films and movies about dorks like Jeffry Dahmer? Only within a culture whereby violence is morally shocking could someone as bland as Dennis Nilsen have a whole documentary series written about him. What would Jeffery Dahmer's place have been in 479 BC amongst a Spartan war band. How is Jeffry Dahmer going to intimidate with his kill count or Eli Roth with his movies in the face of someone who kills for self preservation? Jeffry Dahmer and the knights which young boys dress up as do the same thing, only one is naturalised under social acceptance. What culture needs to do is fortify health and goodness; take the gun out of decadence's hand and return aggression to its rightful owner in aesthetic health. Once you do this, decadence is disarmed of its means to shock, because violence's glory is no longer morally associated with evil. Instead good and evil becomes strength and beauty in opposition to weakness. Remove the synthetic shock value marketed through the antics of nerdy serial killers and sexual deviants and you will reveal aesthetic hierarchy's context, life's true context, one which doesn't have any time for creepily obsessing over death porn, or any other signifier of internal weakness. To aesthetic morality, when the weak use violence outside of aesthetic glory with an expectation to evoke intimidation, under the right lens Eli Roth comes off more so like a kid with a water pistol. He may shock those in a society of a passive custom through raw aggression, but to those who hold destruction's domination in a moral direction, raw violence means nothing other than a tool of some concerning interest. Eli and those like him who take advantage of society's passive customs think violence and conflict belong to them as signifiers of the unorthodox, but he merely adopted it; Pagan morality was born in it, moulded by it. When violence and aggression's "unorthodox" synthetic gravity is removed, strength betrays the decadent because it belongs to aesthetic morality. When the rubber hits the road, Christianity’s hollow and baseless puritanism leaves the aesthetic innocence it confines within pacifism's vulnerability to be raped by decadence's advantage as a demon in the eyes of society having hijacked the means of aggression; to defeat this demon, people are going to need to understand that its only sin exists of its indulgent weakness, and not by any supposed power it synthetically manifests. At this point, the decadent can rep aesthetic morality's evil by embracing indulgence's weakness if they want, but doing so won't be met with shock but pity; after all, they are the ones embracing weakness, not the people they are trying to shock. Modern culture is degenerate, but it springs forth from and maintains the social customs of a Christian past, only in an embrace of its evil. Synthetic purity provides grounds for degeneracy to be fashionable; in it there is right and wrong of which the latter is more illustrious to the common youth, but through the upholding of objective values in health and beauty, man's only options are to either be strong in aesthetic power or weak of will in circumstance of an unorthodox appropriately aligned with submissive indulgence. Instead of gasping at sex and violence like the Lower Aggressive want, strength's mindset should be indifferent in confusion as to why it is expected to react in awe at such elemental displays of nature, indifferent to the very mention of sex and violence itself however observant of whether or not decadence can be found of its circumstance. Within this hypothetical circumstance, Lower Aggressive offensives can only exist powerless once the only thing detected in their attempted shock value stands to be potential signs of weakness of which cannot be feared but mocked.
Of course, cultural shifts are not activated without cause. The human collective itself will not organically adhere to a pantheon of values alien to what it is accustomed to, especially values based on strength and self control for the sake of greater flavour of life’s joys; however, deviation's interest is formed via what it understands to be wrong, but most of what would have been considered wrong within Christian culture's purity is already if not at least half condoned within the discourse of liberated millennials home to decadence's side of synthetic puritanism. Once Gen Z grows up to hold greater influence over the mainstream media, there may be no perceived sin within any prior vice's indulgence. The only reason deviations bare any interest in the first place is because they represent something forbidden within the culture of the time; remove this aspect from the forbidden and stimulation will run dry. People can only stay stimulated by so many things before becoming desensitised to constructed signifiers of indulgence, revealing only aggression's objective nature in its power and beauty to a generation of burnt out beholders. All prior constructs of deviation will become universalised, floating into alignment with the mainstream; then, once all shock value has been depleted from deviant aggression, it will no longer be perceived as forbidden under a synthetic filter, recognised only by its raw objective nature. With synthetic impurity removed, all that will remain in sex and violence will be objective meaning in health, beauty and domination, at which point the new unorthodox will become weakness—meaning the deviance of the low shall align itself with such weakness, and nobody wants to be weak. In this scenario, human culture will become locked into place, unable to reenter a future cycle of degeneracy, since to do so individuals would need to knowingly manifest weakness in serving their indulgences. Those who choose still to embrace indulgence regardless of shame will become no longer aggressors against synthetic puritans, but pray to aesthetic morality and its fortification of health; and with a consciously motivated insurance that culture never reach prior levels of weakness and misery, the only threat to health's growth shall be restricted to Lower Aggressive’s offensive, decadence not in its passive form but its aggressive, something so on the nose it can be dealt with immediately even under passive morality. In its passive form, decadence harnesses the righteousness of humanitarianism—morally striking its enemies, but as an aggressor it has no morality with which to shield itself as it is the sword, unapologetic and non-subject to mercy at its defeat. Only degrees of destruction greater than health's capabilities will be able to fault aesthetic morality's domain then, something which on an ideological level grants its opponent an undeniable right to domination by any morality, passive or aggressive; thus health can at last, finally rest in security and growth, harnessing all psychological variables in its fortification.
No comments:
Post a Comment