The Paradox of Moral Relativism.

When Evil is Attacked by Those Who Deny Its Existence.

In the realm of philosophy and spiritual belief, few ideologies have confounded onlookers as thoroughly as that of the modern Satanist. A peculiar stance held by many adherents of this philosophy is the rejection of the dichotomy between good and evil. They often claim that morality is subjective, fluid, and ultimately devoid of inherent meaning. To the Satanist, there is no objective good or evil—only individual will and power.

Yet, a curious paradox arises when these same individuals—who profess a worldview that denies moral absolutes—go on the offensive, lambasting others as embodiments of “evil.” How is it that someone who claims good and evil are non-existent can so passionately denounce another human being as malicious or corrupt? The contradiction is glaring and, at times, deeply perplexing.

One such example is the case of a Satanist accusing an innocent man of evil deeds. From an outside perspective, it seems to be a classic case of defamation, driven by personal vendetta or ideological discord. But looking deeper, one must question what motivates such accusations. Is it mere hypocrisy, or is there something more unsettling at play?

The Satanic Ethos: Attacking Good as a Principle.

To understand this paradox, one must first unpack the ethos of modern Satanism. While there are various branches and interpretations, a common theme is the glorification of self over all else. This can manifest as rebellion against established norms, a disdain for conventional morality, and a veneration of personal power.

In this framework, “good” can sometimes be equated to weakness, submission, or naivety. If an innocent person—one who upholds traditional values or acts with integrity—is targeted by a Satanist, it might not be because the Satanist truly believes in their wrongdoing. Rather, it could be an expression of a deeper compulsion to subvert, degrade, and undermine anything perceived as upright or principled. In this sense, the act of attacking “good” itself becomes a twisted form of living out their own ethos.

Yet the irony is glaring: by railing against something as evil, they implicitly acknowledge a standard they claim doesn’t exist. This contradiction could be seen as a form of cognitive dissonance—a mental tension between contradictory beliefs. If they truly believe morality is meaningless, why denounce anyone at all?

A Case of Self-Deception?

This paradox often illustrates a deeper issue of mental health and self-deception. In some cases, the individuals may not fully grasp the inconsistency in their own logic. Instead, their accusations are a form of projection, a way to externalize their own inner chaos. By casting blame and ascribing “evil” to another, they momentarily shield themselves from confronting the moral ambiguity they champion.

This cognitive split can create a fragile psyche, where reality itself is constantly bent to accommodate contradictory viewpoints. On the one hand, they profess a rejection of good and evil; on the other, they obsessively hunt down those they label as “evil” without ever acknowledging that they are acting out a warped version of the very moral structure they reject.

Moral Relativism Run Amok.

Ultimately, what we see is a profound disconnection between belief and action. When a Satanist who denies the existence of evil attacks an innocent person as “evil,” they are either undermining their own philosophy or, more disturbingly, illustrating the destructive potential of moral relativism taken to its extreme.

If “good” and “evil” are dismissed as social constructs, then nothing is true, everything is permissible, and any act—no matter how malevolent—can be justified. It becomes impossible to hold oneself accountable, let alone recognize the value of others. Such a worldview, when internalized, can lead to a twisted form of nihilism, where causing harm is not only acceptable but sometimes even celebrated.

And therein lies the danger: in rejecting the very concepts of good and evil, they live out a self-fulfilling prophecy, where any semblance of “good” becomes a target, and those who uphold it are slandered and attacked. It’s as if the Satanist, in his rejection of morality, has become trapped in a feedback loop of destruction, striking at what they perceive as “good,” not because they believe in its existence, but because destroying it validates their warped sense of power.

Conclusion: The Confusion of a Chaotic Mind.

The spectacle of a Satanist, who denies good and evil, accusing an innocent man of evil is more than just hypocrisy—it’s a reflection of a deeply confused and unstable worldview. By living out their philosophy, they reveal the fragility of moral relativism, the instability of a mind that cannot reconcile its own contradictions.

Such behaviour may appear perplexing or even amusing at first glance, but it speaks to a much deeper issue: the disintegration of a coherent sense of self, and the descent into a chaotic mental state where even the simplest distinctions—like that between good and evil—are blurred beyond recognition.

In the end, the Satanist who attacks good while denying its existence is a tragic figure, caught in a maelstrom of his own making, illustrating that denying reality does not free one from its consequences. It only ensures that one becomes a living testament to confusion, self-deception, and, ultimately, self-destruction.