Sign into an existing account

Good and evil don't exist as anything other than the perceptions and/or judgments made by human minds.

They are relativistic by nature and can be neither universal nor objective.

It's merely a preference among preferences, the fears and desires of people, formed from what we take our pleasures and pains in experiencing (actually or hypothetically). We may attempt to provide some justifications or rationale for our opinions on proper conduct, but the true source is little more than what we personally like and dislike.

If you want an objective basis for moral opinions, the best you get is the principles of evolution, the process by which our capacity for moral values emerged.
Under this rule, whatever is best for multiplying the number of your descendants is most moral. The most immoral thing to do is die childless.
If you are so inclined as to so boldly declare things to be moral or immoral, perhaps you should be consistent ,

You might not like it, but you probably also despise the facts about the inevitability of your own mortality, of not on a conscious level, then on an instinctual one.

As morality is but a spook of the minds of men, by what basis can someone "understand" that joking about the holocaust is wrong?

Best you can do us say that it is wrong TO YOU, that you find it immoral, which is to say, that you personally dislike it in an intense enough way to try and declare it a rule of god or nature that it is wrong, even though god doesnt exist and nature would in fact actively encourage the wholesale destruction of one's evolutionary competitors.

Of course, I could say the exact same thing in response but expressing the opposite sentiments regarding the holocaust, that it was a good thing, and evil to oppose. I'd have just as much justification behind this claim.

You could then argue from an evolutionary ethics position that the destruction of the jews was a disadvantage to the Germans, and there are points to that claim as well.
However, this merely illustrates the fact that evolution is unguided, with no goals except that "the future belongs to those who show up": Genes that replicate themselves in other organisms survive to the next round, genes code for traits, and moral instincts were a trait that made organisms better at replication than those lacking them.

There's no other standard to guide the process. It's a Battle Royale style, free for all competition, with multiple winners, and many more losers.

We just try everything and see what works and what doesn't. Most things do not, but this gives us a way to look fondly at the naturally occurring "evils" of the world. As Darwin had said, death and suffering of all kinds gave rise to higher lifeforms from the simplest possible form of life.

Tl;dr: "The holocaust was bad" is just, like, your opinion, man.

It is by no means the objectively "correct" opinion. It is on the exact same level as "the holocaust was awesome."

-

Next, I will explain why "individualism" and collectivism are the same thing, one is merely the singularity short term form of the other, a plurality of the first which invariably grows out of it over the long term.

It's like how government is the long-term form of anarchy, a plurality of many anarchies, which will always arise from the anarchic state of humanity.

Individualism and anarchy are unstable states of being for people, out of personal self interest and the demands of mere existence as an organism, these will break down as emergent complexity takes hold, it is what formed the more complicated world we are accustomed to.

Technically, we live in an individualist anarchy right now, but this is merely the end result of that initial state of disorganization. Order had indeed formed itself out of chaos.

There's a big advantage to forming collectives. It helps you to achieve your goals shared in common with other members of the group. Delegation and hierarchy are invaluable tools for humans seeking to have an effect on the world. It's not slave morality, quite the opposite. How else can you have the ambition, the "will to power", if there's nothing to rise yourself above?

The overman lives within the systems of hierarchy and collective action because he recognized his nature as a man, not a beast. He is civilized by his very existence. If he were not, no philosophy could apply to him.

I've read Stirner, DeSade, Neitzsche, and the works of other libertines, and I have to say that most people who call themselves nihilists are doing it wrong (ignoring that neitzsche wasnt nihilist but a very brutal existential).

The church of Satan says you can't be racist or antisemitic bc they are an individualist ideology.

Apparently, "do as thou wilt" has its limitations, "do as thou wilt unless it is in the interests of the CoS to tell you to do otherwise."

Freedom of thought and of the expression of that thought are the most important freedoms you could have.

Under the expressed ideals and principles of Satanism, there should be nothing against becoming a devout fundamentalist Christian, if that is what you will.

You are merely following your desires where they lead you, and in this case, they lead you to accepting Jesus christ as your lord and savior. Living a good holy life in accordance with God's will as revealed in the biblical texts.

That's the self destructive retarded nature of Satanism, it supports the very thing it opposes, it tells you that there is no contradictions between itself and Christianity. At the same time it does make statements about how a satanist could never be a faithful follower of christ the redeemer. I find that hilarious.

It's clear this is not philosophically sound, but instead a political move, its pandering to the most dominant cultural forces in society, the establishment is genuinely threatened by the rise of bold antisemitic sentiments, and all institutions the establishment has purchase in are made to reject this existential threat to the global banking dynasties.

There's no threat in people speaking out against the system, corporations, government, or bankers, so long as they are not specific, abstract rebellion is, in fact, quite useful to the extant world regime.

Rick Sanchez can kill as many cops as he likes, so long as he sucks up to the commandee in chief at the top of the government he claims to despise. There are always a lot of police, and they are low ranking in the hierarchy. None of them matter. The system throws them under the bus because those tools are replaceable.

The antisemitic might actually take down the corporations, politicians, Wall Street, Hollywood, etc. They threaten the system in a real way, not just superficially. They might actually cause problems for powerful and wealthy players.

Yes, it's because they name specific names and target specific institutions, and a lot of the people in the highest echelons of power tend to be wealthy and jewish.

It's not antisemitic to talk about how you hate the corporations plundering the planet, but it is when you actually strike out against them, their leadership and beneficiaries are more often jewish than not, and the people they work under are almost always jews.

The likes of antifa strike the toes, nazis strike the head, antifa attacks the symptoms, nazis attack the causes.

Though the nazis may be like hyperactive autoimmune cells, attacking the healthy cells along with the harmful ones. They will wipe out the whole of the issue for sure because they target other gentiles as well.