Cyclical interpretations of the cosmos tend to suffer from their inability to contemplate any form of wrongness. Since the Semitic invasion of Europe via proxy Christianity, this quandary has become so vast that it is the indecipherable pattern within the picture; the curtain behind the curtain; the ancient normative from which other normative flaws subsist.
Lips smack of a bitter taste as we address the question of "wrongness," as though a Falwellian prude has arrived to set a little boy on his befrocked knee and administer a punitive exploration. In the echo chamber of the occupied media, Jewish Christianity seems to be the only thing still speaking of the existence of any wrongs. That is the power of the invasive normative ideal: its built-in hypocrisy.
What is this logical flaw in wrongness? It is not merely Jewish Christianity, but all forms of Jenomic philosophy which rely upon a "punitive improvement" model. Specifically, we're discussing worldviews which argue that things happen in cycles, interplaying between good and bad, thereby producing the sustenance of the cosmos and, by implication, all possible good things that ever can or will happen. Consider the moral boundaries of the Jewish Christian narrative: the omniscient, omnipotent God creates man, knowing that man will defy Him and create offspring that will struggle to go to either Heaven or Hell. Or, consider the more recent expression of that narrative, whereby impartial, cruel nature creates itself, resulting in creatures which thrive or go extinct, constantly bettering themselves to survive in their environment(s). There are political and economic forms of this argument also--the flow between owners and laborers that motivates hard work and hoarding, resulting in resource gluts that foster the lazy, resulting in socialism, failure, and dearth, which reinstills the need for pro-motivational reward systems, prompting a return to capitalism; or, the greatness of an individual or group that leads to monarchy or aristocracy, which is squandered, slowly or rapidly, by its lesser inheritors, resulting in rebellion and democracy, which gradually proves ineffective, causing disorder which only a strong hierarchy can alleviate--any of these explicatory models provide a "just so" explanation for why things change, miming the Noah's Ark and Second Coming plagiarizations employed by the Jenomic death-religions.
Where the cycles fail, though, is not merely their lack of predictive utility. They do fail there--Christ's persistent refusal to return on large round numbers, or the communists' failure to produce anything except chemotherapic suicide by purge, or perhaps the slow death of a chairbound glutton unwilling to exit the recliner for work--but those failures can always be attributed to a lack of time. There remains, always, one wayward counterrevolutionary, one more vague prophecy that must be fulfilled, before the faithful will give up their ghost and put plow to soil. No, the more troubling aspect of any of these cyclical, somnatically irresponsible cycles--most especially of the derisive, anti-communist, pro-capitalistic ones--is their inability to draw conclusions outside the cyclical model of the normative. They are, as a result, necessarily immoral, amoral, and anti-moral, as well as paralyzed and thoroughly under control.
Of what does this one speak? Well, consider a natural cycle with which we are mostly familiar in Terra 2016: our seasons. Spring, summer, autumn, winter, spring...right? Now, in the winter, it's often colder, and plants sometimes die, but then in spring plants often grow back. In fact, it turns out that the winter was part of an integrated process whereby Terra keeps itself healthy, evolves its growth, purges redundancies, prevents cascading system failures, and so forth.
How moral, then, is winter? Is it right to hate winter for what it does, namely, bringing about the new spring? Or, to hate "night" for bringing about the dawn? Of course not. And yet, those who argue that sin is part of a testing process, a winnowing of souls, would say that they hate sin? Without which everyone would be the same before God, and there would be no means by which someone could prove himself worthy or unworthy of God? This is the broken, internally-inconsistent mishmash narrative of Jewish Christianity, just like it is for other Jenomic strains on Terra, such as evolution and capitalism and communism.
The failure of the narrative is profound because it is not an argument against the narrative, or against any of the narrative's conclusions, or anything so simply contestable. One can be a perfect communist, and conclude, "Thank Marx for the evil capitalists, and for the thousands of years during which they extracted labor so cruelly and pitilessly from the workers they exploited and killed, for they have brought the revolution even closer!" Communism's cycle necessitates the exploitation of capitalists, therefore, it is good, for it is not only a step leading toward the world workers' state, but a completely necessary step, without which there could never be a revolution, nor a communist state. The same flaw torments Christianity, wherein horrible sins (and sinners) need to exist in order for genuine, realistic temptations to be there for good people to avoid (or to fall prey to, then seek repentance for). The entire cosmology of Jewish Jesus, like that of Marx, calls for the perpetration of sin by the majority, in order that the minority be saved, and He designed the system, so it is above mortal reproach; indeed, it is a sin to doubt it or question it. That is why sinners are blessed, loved, and forgiven, even in the most excruciating and deliberate circumstances, by the sad, dangerous zombies which host Jenome.
Economic resource-realists bear this same flaw. If strong societies inevitably produce a surplus that "forces" their population to decay, then the decay is itself good, because it leads to killing hardship, revolution, and the re-establishment of rule by the strong. The collapse of civilization is "winter" to the renewal's "spring," therefore, hating welfare trash that rape-murders women is not only stupid, but highly immoral. Pursuant to these philosophies, an African immigrant who rapes a seven-year-old, pisses onto her knife-wounds, then shuts her in a garage to bleed out, is an ultimate universal good: he is the only means by which civilization can be renewed. Not only that killer, but the thirty-two-year-old white kid, lifetime college student, who borrowed Mom's 401(k) to buy an RV and travel the country playing Pokemon with his fat, soy-eating friends, is a universal hero. He is a beautiful amber leaf drifting from the tree in autumn, heralding the coming winter and the beautiful spring to follow. We should welcome any form of decay because it foreshadows goodness and hope--and, therefore, nothing can ever be wrong.
This normative trap did not always exist, and is not generated everywhere. Prior to the Maran invasion, starlight religions of expanse, rather than cycle, thrived. A cycle is, properly understood, a trap--a hamster wheel--meant to keep a soul (or "a person's self-conception" if you prefer) viewing existence as either an endless holding pattern or a gradual regression. Expansion religions are different, mimicking the beginningless, endless, infinitely growing and improving nature of the universe, while recognizing the cyclical patterns through which that expansion occurs, and through which it can regress (evil) if not protected. Early Indo-Aryan paganisms recognized this; consider how earthly reincarnation is a path toward Nirvana, whereas for the unwary, the cycle is endless hell--Yaldabaoth's material trap--while, for the wary, the cycle is a stepping stone. This view permits us to recognize the nature of reality without forestalling our travels through, or our duties to, that reality.
Naturally, the Jenomic invasion of Indo-Europa was designed to gorge on these philosophies from the inside, transforming them century by century into increasingly crippled versions of themselves. European pagans, for example, knew to not give the tiniest damn if men had gross private relations, but they also knew to bury in a bog anyone who fondled their young sons. The Semitic invasion inverted sensibility in both cases, enshrining a gay mafia of acknowledged child molesters into an international network of tithe-drinkers, while encouraging perverse interrogative interest in other places.
A philosophy is useless--and, far more importantly, wrong--when it provides no means for distinguishing between good and bad, e.g., forces which either perpetuate or damage the philosophy. Jewish Christianity, like the similarly-Semitic Marxism and capitalism, beg their own questions and posit impossibilities within their own governing tropes, making all moral judgments relative by establishing schema whereby every action is both good and bad, war leading to peace until war equals peace, freedom leading to slavery until freedom is slavery. Capitalism requires the communistic establishment of markets regulating what may be bought and sold, thereby denying its own freedoms, and making it merely another form of socialism; "regulated capitalism" is every capitalism, ergo socialism, and communism, like Jewish Christianity, requires the original sin of capital/apple to bring about a universalist paradise on Earth. "Anarchism," for example, advocates for the lack of a state, but what if anarchically free individuals willingly enter into a contract whereby they create a state? What if they all agree 100% with the state's decisions? What if one of them then goes back on her/his word and breaks the state's contractual provisions; do the others get to enforce them, or does that make them traitors to anarchy itself? Ergo there can be no agreements, but even establishing such a rule implies some type of organizational force to guarantee the rule, which ensures that there can be no such rule, ergo agreements may be made, ergo there cannot be anarchism. Capitalism needs markets, ergo market rules are established, ergo it's socialism, and communism needs managers, ergo it's capitalism. These are the circular wrecks of the hamster-wheel philosophies, making for merry arguing--God gives us free will, but God already knows what's going to happen, et cetera--while retarding the growth of light. Expansive philosophies do not suffer this problem, able to identify as "bad" things which are against light, even though light can indeed recover from bad things, and to identify as "good" things which are pro-light, even if, later on, someone does something bad. It is the Jenomic trick to pick this or that from the past and claim, "We never would have invented the home bread maker if the khanate hadn't tortured that one dude a thousand years ago, since butterflies." Such is a euthanizing philosophy for a planet, lulling its inhabitants into believing that failure is good because it produces later goods. False--the verse expands, light lights up light, love grows, and looking at beautiful statues makes you appreciate beauty more, not less. It is a sickening, inherit wrongness, this idea that bad is necessary or advisable for good, or that goodness is only a foreshadowing of badness.
Hinduism has survived since those invasions, much changed, but still possessing at least a sense of expansion and direction. European religions, though, have been subsumed by Jewish Christianity, damning them to a meaningless hypocrisy whereby nothing can actually be evil because evil is in service of a greater plan. The persistence of hypocritical judgment is a holdover from the genuine judgment that came before, whereby evil actions could be recognized as evil because they were inherently wrong and against the expansive goodness of creation, but infected religions, as well as infected political and economic schema, have no such testicular fortitude, for they're stuck inside the normative necessity of believing that badness has to happen in order to bring about goodness (the same trick worked the last six times they used us to invade Iraq). So they approach "civilization decay" as a good sign, having been lured, nonsensically, into believing that badness is goodness and goodness is badness.
Why look forward to the future, if such is the way of the world? Why aspire to great achievements, anyway, under such a model? Great achievements only foreshadow the degeneracy and collapse of the future's idle miscreants, who will no doubt enjoy even filthier pleasures during their collapse than we have now. For modern Jewish Christians, who have become relativistic Marxists in all but name, the twilight behavior is sadly appropriate; a headstone being hewed for the parasitic faith of the Charlemagnic rapespawn and the fawn-eyed traitors who held "refugees welcome" signs in the 700s A.D. For the economic realists, though, who think that the genocide of their people is to be welcomed because "our destruction is our salvation," the inanity of their hyper-dimensional unpossibles is laughable, for they draw the same fundamental cosmological conclusions as the Jewish Christians or the ignorant communists, while mocking the very same occupation religions from which they think they themselves have escaped.