Temple of Zagan

A very insightful essay by an anon on 4chan, except for the fact that they presented 7 ideas, instead of 6.

1. If someone feels hatred it must be because they have not thought rationally about something. In other words, they claim that an emotional reaction cannot be the product of logical contemplation. If I discover something or arrive at a certain conclusion after a long investigation and review of evidence, then I am likely to become gripped by either satisfaction or indignation, depending on the implications of the findings. Emotion can be the product of rationality, but rationality cannot be the product of emotion. When you think about it, there is for the most part always a cause or reason behind someones mood or feeling. Rationality serves as a catalyst for the strongest emotional responses. Reason and emotion are not mutually exclusive. One gives birth to the other.

2. “Having an open mind” does not mean to experiment, but to consider. But those who are openly mad disregard examination as being a sufficient method to form an opinion and through coercion insist that one actually has to partake in something to justify any feelings they might have about it. The scientific method has been bastardized to gaslight decent people into participating in the most vile of acts. Do not give in to the pressure of these recruiters of vice. Resist my fellow citizens. Trust your instincts.

3. The whole premise of multiculturalism is fallacious. If I take a stroll down a diverse and cosmopolitan district and take in all of the eateries which all specialize in cuisines originating from foreign lands, I understand that the experience I have when dining at these places is only authentic because the homelands responsible for these different cultures are inhabited by a homogeneous people. For multiculturalism to exist, whole cultures of distinct ethnic groups have to also exist somewhere else in the world. When visiting the countries that all of these different restaurants are giving you a taste of, what do you see? If you travel to China, you see Chinese people. If you go to Japan, you see Japanese people, and so on and so forth.

3. To forgive automatically is to assume that you were wronged accidentally. To forgive despite the wrongdoer not having issued a genuine apology nor expressed any feelings of guilt, is an insult to yourself. Forgiveness should only be afforded to those who have demonstrated that they are actually sorry, or have made up for their misdeed.

A true apology is a gesture as opposed to empty words which in most cases are extracted by force. We are often told that our inner peace is dependent on us forgiving others who have crossed us. But isn’t the reverse true? If somebody is overwhelmed by guilt and feels regretful about a particular offense, then naturally they would will reconciliation. To forgive someone who is proud of their crime is to add injury to your character and to forfeit your dignity. Inner peace is dependent on justice – which ever form the situation calls for.

4. The favorite strategy of apologists to excuse the actions of criminals, vice peddlers or deviants, is to claim that they can’t help the way they are – that they were born that way. This is an attempt to direct our sympathy away from the victim, and towards the culpable. This is probably the most pernicious idea that I have ever encountered because with its successful adoption the guilty become perceived as innocent and justice suddenly becomes unenforceable. But the people utilizing this tactic of whitewashing are apparently under the impression that those in which they are trying to influence with the perspective of the guilty party actually didn’t consider that they were “born that way” before casting judgments. But I have no doubts about whether they were born that way. The only necessary question is whether they are able to be reformed or changed. If not – as the defenders of scoundrels like to insist as a means of encouraging tolerance – then their ways are fixed and they are a lost cause.

If a predator or a criminal is just that, and all of our efforts to correct them will invariably prove futile – as suggested by the proponents or virtue – then wouldn’t the only logical course of action be to oppose those who are inherently corrupted ever more fiercely? If a rabbit is fully aware that a hound is designed to hunt and consume it, why would that be a reason for the rabbit to tolerate the hound? It would be suicide for the rabbit. I believe that the promotion of this one idea is responsible for the huge ideological and political rift that can be witnessed today. As you can see in the minds of these people – which is clearly backwards – an innocent that refuses to forgive those who have caused them misfortune and pain is unreasonable, since of course have had no control over their actions since they were born that way.

5. “Culture is more important than race.” Are you suggesting that race and the state of a culture are independent of each other? That race has no bearing or impact on culture? That is equivalent to saying that culture is more important than inherent ability stemming from biology, and moreover that the former has nothing to do with the latter at all. Its amazing the nonsensical arguments and excuses that are used to claim that race is irrelevant, when it is at the root of everything. You might as well say that culture is more important than being human.

Race determines the quality of a culture, so really this is like saying that the Mona Lisa is more important than Leonardo da Vinci. But this isn’t really all that accurate since the paintings of Da Vinci are works of art. What happens when a culture can be more closely compared to garbage, instead of art? When it is obvious that an outrageous culture lacks anything promising or even arouses feelings of disgust, those who have an interest in persuading us that race doesn’t exist resort to relativization and thus their pious glorification of savages.

6. Respect is not free. In fact by definition there has to be a rhyme or reason to respect someone. As a means to redefine our understanding of respect as being some kind of birthright that someones “human dignity” is dependent on though, they now all assert that the only necessary precondition to respect somebody is them being a fellow human being!

Where respect used to be earned by the quality of a person, their personal merit and positive character, it has now been debased and reduced to a meaningless freebie. It is no longer viewed as something exclusively warranted by the behavior and actions of an individual, but by them simply breathing air. Respect has devolved from something rewarded to a specific kind of person, to just any person at all simply because they are just that – a person.

This idea is also extremely harmful to any civilized society as it entails many different assumptions. When we renounce judgement and no longer feel it required to ask the question: “but what kind of person are they?” It means that people no longer have to prove themselves worthy of anything.

It means that success and failure are regarded equally which in turn necessitates the elimination of standards, expectations and admission requirements. But an equal approach to both success and failure doesn’t persist as one would think. Instead, mediocrity is revered and greatness and exceptionalism is shunted. The great bulk of humanity is for the most part simple and basic. It is a small minority that is responsible for all of the revolutionary achievements and hence human evolution as a whole. Thus, to elevate canaille over individuals with true talent and ability promises the end of all human progress and the beginning of the end.

A lot of common sense ideas, but applied to modern western culture and politics ends up as very harsh criticisms on multiculturalism, Jews and a lot of common far left talking points. Interesting ideas to apply to one’s personal life and relationships, as well.

 

 

Original screen cap: