Adharmic Echoes: The Face of the Void

Creatures roam the interwebs like spiders at night, crawling across your pillow and seeking a warm place to rest. Nestling up to your head to absorb your dream-heat, while others jump into the snoring pit of doom, absent-mindedly, nightmarishly munched, but in dreamland, a crunchy, consciously forbidden snack.

People have opinions based on experiences, both their own and those of others. Many aren’t great arbiters of reality, but we have little else. Thankfully these satisfy our need to function commensurate with survival. To deny your experience is to deny your being, so people cling to them like a man overboard to a life preserver. There is no worse suffering than ignorant blind suffering.

Some, having not experienced what you have, believe they are your better. Others simply go through life slipping on banana peels, repeatedly banging their heads on the floor, chalking it up to coincidence. Can such people be saved? Are they worth saving?

No. If someone has been so consumed by propaganda as to deny their pain and suffering, the avenues for redemption are limited. Pain is one of the most motivating things, and I do not mean just physical pain. Mental anguish is just as affecting if not more so than beatings. There are several Saadian (á la Gad Saad) idea pathogens which can lead to a state of insolubility of conscience, such as atheism, anarchism, and democratism.

Atheists surrender to materialism, and in doing so surrender faith. There is more to man than blood and bone, as bread alone does not fulfil his hunger. Anarchism presumes all men capable of self-rule, that such self-rule should or would result in order and organization, yet where are these great anarchisms? Furthermore, democratism is the idea that majority opinion and policy shall rule, and bring forth prosperity. This is like jumping from great height, and saying everything will stabilize when we hit terminal velocity. Such is true, but not useful or good.

So what makes these idea-pathogens rather than ideas? It is that they terminate into the Void. They lack a magnetic polar North to guide them objectively. In short, they lack the concept of God, a moral framework based outside of their material being. In claiming they hold the essence of being, and given they will one day perish, they embrace the Void. Such people are not promoting a thriving civilization, but are instead practicing adharma (in the Hindu/Buddhist sense), leaving them blind and malleable, holding no principles of function. Combine these with anarchy and majority rule, you have a recipe for chaos and disorder. This is why atheism is so dangerous: everything they do that is good derives from the remnants of their culturally imbued theism, whilst everything else is adharmic: unprincipled pleasure-seeking at any cost (for it is hardly theirs to bear). Heretics were not dealt with due to ignorance, but wisdom. It was maintenance; and control of decadence.

I will use the term adharmic to describe the atheist-anarchic-democratic going forward. By definition, adharmics cannot have or hold civilization. They are by nature, anti-civilizational; existing outside of time and negotiate only with themselves and their fellows. They cannot negotiate with the future or the past, because they “know” they will one day perish, and in the materialist view, that may as well be nothing. After them comes the all-consuming Void, the end, the great all-of-nothing, making their actions ultimately in their view, all-for-nothing. Holding a vision of the world which includes a transcendental overarching principle, means that the world existed before yourself, and will continue to exist long afterwards. You enter a contract that you will play your role accordingly, and so are held responsible for it. Ironically, the belief in the immaterial transcendental allows you to take possession of a part of it and do what you will with it. You are in that sense much more individualized and capable, productive and useful, than the adharmics. By what principle does an adharmic plant a tree under whose shade he will never seek shelter? From whose apples he shall never sup? One cannot point to the Void and claim that it drove him to it, for such reason lay beyond the Void.

Furthermore, what is a failure condition to the adharmic? For a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jain or Sikh, failure is obvious; its consequences are known; atonement is prescribed. But for an adharmic? It is the Void if he does X; it is the Void if he does Y. It is the Void if he gives charitably; it is the Void if he murders. So what motivates him? How does he discern value or goodness? He who is not servant to the transcendental seeks to make the world serve him. The limiting principle? The Void. Tyranny is only restrained by their capacity. They may continue “common” religious virtues, but in as much as they do, they are not adharmic and so we cannot attest that to worship of the Void.

The unexhausted transcendental values which remain in an adherent of adharmism often trick such subjects into thinking they had them all along. Like the fish in water never knowing anything else, they have become blind to the medium in which they swim, and do not appreciate them until this medium is removed. In this, we demonstrate to the adharmic that theirs are not more than the worship of the self (and thus Void), and the only thing grounding them in the world of normalcy is that the “common” morals they cling to are not of them, but of civilization’s transcendental principles. Many will claim they are consequentialists, but that is equally worship of the Void, only it restrains the actor to their transcendent principles to one layer of analysis. For example, they may claim that it is wrong to kill because they don’t want to be killed (again, reference to the self). Which is literally to say: “I fear the Void, and so I assume you must fear the Void.” However, that is hardly a principle, for when it comes to a question as to whom, of two (yourself and another) shall meet with the Void, how do you decide who shall do so? In the adharmic, it will be the self and preserve the self at any cost. There is no principle beyond the self and reference to the self regarding the Void.

Or how about if, considering consequentialism, you can go back in time to “kill baby Hitler”? Should you? Most adharmic consequentialists would say yes. However, did he think it through? If you kill baby Hitler perhaps Germany succeeds in getting the bomb first, perhaps the Final Solution plan succeeds instead of just doing a lot of damage. Perhaps instead of ~50 million souls being lost to war, 100 million or more are lost! So where is the value of consequentialism? You cannot foresee the consequences of your choices, and so assuming this prescience or at least your limited prescience on the issue is not a great method of deducing morality. It is less a moral system and more an abrogation of responsibility.

There are self-righteous, indignant adharmics everywhere, coming in all shapes, sizes, and ages. They are essentially radical egalitarians, who seek out “fairness”. The world is not fair. The world is not equal. They don’t care about our reality. If reality has a will they will bend it. They instead bend themselves, and you, to suit their narrative imposition. These faithless zealots will push their adharmic leisure, measure by measure, at their pleasure. They will take from you everything and do so with smugness. Their weakest versions call you an assortment of words ending in “-ist”; their strongest orders drone strikes to eliminate your family.

What can be done against such reckless disregard for reality and tradition? It depends on your place and time, but everyone can play a role. Some are better off being quiet soldiers, others should highlight the adharmics so others can see them glowing. If someone calls someone long dead or nearly an “-ist” word, challenge them, verbally accost them, but from the heart. Weak responses build upon other weaknesses, and we require strength. The piles of bodies that can be counted from excess strength pales in comparison to that of weakness. Being strong does not harm anyone but evil, and evil deserves it.

Men who genuflect towards the overbearing effeminate are not brave or strong, but cowards of the highest order. They are so weak, that they know women do not want them naturally, that their only hope is to beg a woman to take them; in doing so they would pay any price no matter how deranged nor barren the womb. Fatherhood abates them. They fear responsibility. They are the men of excess, born to tear down the world our fathers and mothers built. They mock the old and wise. They favour the young and ignorant. They are the coomers, the entombers who seal our fate lest stopped. God saw fit that they are dealt with, for He made them cowards, and you dear reader are His bravest soldiers. John 3:16