September 5, 2025

Tibetan depiction of
the Black Vajrapani (वज्रपाणि)

Friday:
What does it mean to judge other men? | September 6, 2025

In my post about discrimination I stated that for a man to functionally interact with the world, specifically the human context, he needs to clearly prioritize those aspects of life in the material domain that brings him better circumstances, and that this ordering of the world was the fundamental foundation for the strictly hierarchical way in which the world makes itself apparent: indeed without this ability to order the world into sense, to make sense of the world, man would invariably fall into mental illness as the boundaries of the world would fade into each other and the material order would fall apart completely. Indeed, even the most liberal men, the proponents of the humanist axiom, would and do discriminate with great diligence against those men that object to the tenants of the liberal and the material order, for they recognize that they must keep the boundary that separates one or several material quantities apart from the other, this is the definition of the material order. What makes a lamp a lamp and not a chair? What makes a chair a chair and not a lamp? The post-modernist would argue that merely human interaction with that object, human judgement, makes that object the chair or the lamp, but what remains clear even to him, the post-modernist, is that the lamp and the chair represents two separate quantities in the material domain, and that those quantities, in this case the chair and the lamp, possess fundamentally different, not opposed but different, qualities: that is to say it is the qualities that defines the object or constitutes the object, and without the ability to interact with those qualities, in this case sense light, there would be no way, or at any rate it would be much harder, to recognize the functional difference in the material domain between a chair and a lamp, even though both at the most primordial level share the same matter and the same forces; they are nonetheless apparent in the world as separate objects, separate quantities. I believe most men, with the perennial exception of some post-modernists, would agree that the purpose of discrimination and judgement is perfectly legitimate when it comes to most inanimate objects/quantities in the material domain, and that it would be perfectly unreasonable and impractical to ask men not to render judgement between the functionality of lamp and a chair in relation to the material domain and/or in how they relate to each other: a lamp if functional, let's assume that, will light up a room, but a chair won't; a chair on the other hand can be useful if you want to sit down without having to sit down on the floor/ground, something a lamp won't directly help you with in most reasonable contexts. In other words: without being able to distinguish between quantities in the material domain, life will become impossible, and most men accept this fact. The issue of judgement and discrimination however, becomes quite complicated when we start to judge and discriminate against some other less inanimate quantities in the world, such as when we discriminate against other people, or when we discriminate against certain ideas, this is essentially the essence of politics. What does it mean to judge other people, and why do we judge other people? See, it's fancy these days to talk of "never judging other people" and being tolerant towards other people's ideas, other people's lifestyles, etc, etc, but in reality this is nothing but fancy and profoundly empty platitudes: human beings do judge each other similarly to how they judge inanimate objects and while some people high on the humanist axiom feels that it's perhaps rude and unnecessary to judge other people, the very act of feeling that and even more so expressing those feelings, is a form of judgement. What would happen if men didn't judge other men, if they didn't discriminate against or in favor of other men? Well, just as you wouldn't be able to rely on some objects functionally, in relation to the world, if you didn't value objects by ordering them in relation to each other, you wouldn't be able to understand other men and perhaps more importantly, you wouldn't be able to understand yourself: for within other men you confirm not only that the world is the way that you see it and sense it when you interact with it, but more importantly you wouldn't be able to set yourself apart as a living and breathing creature, you wouldn't be able to develop an ego in the first place, essentially you wouldn't be able to be conscious. In other perhaps more practical terms: it means that you would basically have to become mentally ill if you refused to judge other men and more importantly put yourself in relation to those other men, and invariably within a short time you would also lose your ability to order any other aspect of the material world around you, essentially the world would fall apart as the boundaries of the material order would morph into nonsense creatures.

    So, why is it so important for the proponents of the humanist axiom, the revolutionary elite, to not judge other men, or rather to tell the plebeian horde that it is wrong to judge other people? Well, they, the revolutionary elite, would have you believe that it is wrong and hurtful to judge other people and that other people, other men, would take great offense at you judging them or really discriminating against them. See, it's not that the revolutionary elite cares if you discriminate in favor of other men, it's rather that you leave out other men in the act of favoring some men over some other men. This is a problem for the revolutionary elite because their ideology, the material order, claims that all men are fundamentally equal in their material constitution since no soul exists, and further that all men in their natural state strives towards liberalism and rationalism: that "natural" men are governed by the rationalist principles of the humanist axiom and the world naturally tends towards "progress"—by progress in this context I mean moral progress, that man somehow along the way has acquired morality and that this humanist morality is a nonpareil and completely inevitable part of the human condition. If this is true, the imperialism of the western world makes complete sense, for it would surely be wrong to keep men under the shadow and oppression ignorance? And by discriminating against some men, you are essentially discriminating against the enlightenment, you are saying to the world that these men are not worth the effort—they are lost to the mysticism and the fog of past and less advanced men, our ancestors—and by doing that you are denying the universality of the humanist axiom: not all men in their natural state are rational and liberal and therefore the fundamental premise of the humanist axiom is false, not all men are naturally liberal and not all men and not all societies tends towards this thing called "progress".

John Tenniel's depiction of
"nonsense creatures"

    Under the humanist or the materialist rubric the only people that you are allowed to judge are those people that do not adhere to the principles of the humanist axiom, for those people have to be enlightened, they have to be liberated from their mystical and supernatural misconceptions about the world, for they just like the western man are essentially liberal and humanist, and after all it is inevitable that they will become liberal humanists, this is a function of "progress". Acceptance and multiculturalism is just modern day imperialism: when in the past western powers invaded and imposed themselves on what they would label the non-enlightened parts of the world, they have now decided to erase all cultural differences between men and instead create a multicultural soup that in their minds will eventually tend towards liberalism and humanism, and just like they embrace the thrill of the entropy and the concept of the cosmic soup/flux, they believe that the eventual and inevitable end of multiculturalism will be the final liberation of all of mankind, and that must begin with erasing judgment and discrimination men between. In our days, to judge is to notice and to notice is to invalidate the premise of the humanist axiom.

Reginald Drax – September 5, 2025.