Atheists be warned:

File: download (2).jpg (13KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 292x173px

>>132868593
It is here where pain can be washed away. It is the option where you do not attempt to break down the wall, nor fade into self destructive nihilism. It is the only option where the individual can accept the cruelty of the universe that seeks to reject him. The political spectrum follows in the same manner as follows…

The first option, if you have been following correctly and given some thought, is of course the far left. These individuals are why the right often find so hard to deal with because they simply cannot accept the hard truths of reality on any given issue to any slight degree. They deny any proposition that "You can't change the nature of X you must do the correct Y even if it is a painful truth". The left will choose to ignore the harsh reality of live and will continue to blame the inadequacy of happiness on others and themselves. To cope with the harsh truth that the universe does not care for them, the left values their entire existence on the cooperation of others. The struggle, to them, is that all harsh realities of the universe can be washed away by love. Hence why the left always coins that phrase “love wins”. The left believes all wounds can be solved if there are enough band aides to go around, but what they miss is that when they are no bandages, they have nowhere to run. In the case of the box, the individual has no-one but his endless struggle. The harshness of the universe will surely overcome in time.

File: God-creation.jpg (24KB, 482x376px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 482x376px

>>132868644
2) Is that of the right wing. These individuals have literally have taken the red pill but since realizing the gravity of their situation, they must resort to later accepting the black-pill. Now some of you traditionalists are screaming your head off right now, but you must understand that I do not think traditionalism is wrong. I think traditionalism is more of the middle, and ill explain why later. But a true individual who sees reality as for what it really is, without looking towards anything above for hope(that being a window out of the box) is doomed to fall into nihilism. And as I'm sure many of you who experienced this, the abyss truly stares back. It is here where the individual values to logos as the giver of happiness. The right has the wise understanding that to live in an illusion can do more harm than good in the future. This premise finds to influence the right so much so that it seeks into their daily life. There is one law and one law only in this mindset “All you have in the end is yourself”. And thus it follows that in case two of our hero in the box, he has nothing. Truly no aspiration to live; no reason to strive or to struggle; and all he is left with is the pain of his existence. And with this alone, he cannot accept the cruelty of his situation. For if all he has is pain, his very existence, then he has nothing left to turn into goodness. For to do so otherwise would be to contradict the previous statement.

File: Laocoon_Pio-Clementino_Inv1059-1064-1067.jpg (3MB, 2600x2500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2600x2500px

>>132868701
3)rd option, the window, is where one sees the appeal that draws one to one side of the other. In the third option, one learns to combine the two inclinations that relieve suffering to maintain a permanent state of transcendence, that being an acceptance of the cruelty of his world. The third option accepts the following premise "I understand my need as a human to be free, even though I know that I cannot(escaping a cruel universe). The idea of hope, as a feeling and concept, is a reflection of my unchanging and TRUE human nature. To embrace the role of hope, in the midst of all hell, is to embrace oneself and its relation to the eternal. The belief in hope is salvation. One may call this ‘eternal faith’ ”

Here, divine peace is found in the divine struggle. By introspecting ourselves in relation to moving to one extreme to another in 1 and 2, our perspective from viewing ‘hope’ as just a means to survival, where hope revolves around our needs, salvation is found by seeing ‘hope’ for what it truly is: divine. Above us, eternal, loving, and all truthful, hence it exists no matter how cruel the situation. Hope, is truly something that makes no sense in existence. Hope is the complete anti thesis in relation to the reality of the universe. But yet it is hope that drives us despite of the true nature of the universe. It is hope that our hearts may be set free to accept the cruelty of a universe that does no care for us. Hope, is our only insight into what is everlasting, for hope is the very idea of something that goes “beyond”. Any concept that exists externally apriori, as proved by kant, cannot be known to exist. But by understanding the true nature of hope in relation to us, we grasp that feeling and significance of a “everlasting existence”. This is where the subjective truth meets the concept of the objective truth. For it is by only understanding the true nature of the external world as cruel can we ever find this concept.

File: RELIGIONES.png (47KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 220x220px

>>132868767
In case of any objection to wanting to choose 1 or 2 before accepting 3. The reason for this is because if one individual says they would rather have 1 over 2, or vice versa, they simply have not gone down the rabbit hole on either side to exhaustion. Both lead to the same torment, for at the core the problem still remains, that being the pain of being rejected by a cruel universe. Neither accurately solves the problem, but does rather give insight to why we fall to either of the two extremes to deal with a cruel universe:
From 1) we see the value of love (manifested as struggle) Love is the driving factor
From 2) we see the value of truth
But it is in unison in the realization of hope, manifested in the 3rd option do we come to find everlasting peace. Traditionalism is in the middle as it pertains to the existential mindset of political philosophy. But anyways I feel you all get the point. Those religious truths that traditionalism emphasis are correct. Traditionalism simply represents a method of realizing the divine truth or the synthesis of value 1 and 2 as mentioned above. That method being, of course, the internal moral struggle. But the truth is, is that the moral struggle is what leads up to discovering the truths mentioned above. The path of traditionalism is the path of the narrow gate. But the truths mentioned above are further than that only in the sense that it explains why the narrow gate works. Perfect morality is assumed to be a condition on both political sides. The left does so with their dogmatic belief in the value of collectivism, the right does so with traditionalism. I will leave you with this last message. Go forth and do right.