- Yes, that would be very "cool." And besides, it would mark you as the best investor in the entire empire... - she pulls out treatises scribbled during the flight between locations while her pilot wasn't looking. - Alas, I may be mistaken about some historical facts, so we'll do without the fourth one. You know me well enough already to understand my position... Well?
2. Akonia: good, evil, or something else?
I will try not to delve into today's political thickets, as I consider it bad taste; please forgive me if I don't succeed very well. I also understand very well that this is a loaded question, so I will try to approach it without value-laden judgments.What do we—the general population—know about Akonia? First and foremost, that she was the closest companion of Arselia—the second incarnation of Anuzish—whom she, according to a legend six thousand years old, subsequently betrayed and killed, for which she was brutally executed. Without venturing into the realm of historical revisionism, what do we actually have?
First of all, we do not know the subtext of what happened, which was certainly present in this matter. The closest follower of the All-Mother does not become such by a snap of the fingers or an impulse of inner ambition, but as a result of exceptional spiritual resonance with her ideals. No matter how cunning a child believes themselves to be, they cannot deceive the mother; to her, their heart is like an open book. Have you ever wondered how, when going to church, a priest at confession is able to see right through your soul? If dark malice had lurked in Akonia's soul, there is no doubt that Arselia would have identified it unerringly. What would she have done in such a case? Taken measures? Perhaps. Left things to take their own course, believing that a lost soul could find its way back to the path of light on its own? Not impossible. But would she have desired that a lost child be brutally destroyed and their name cursed for all eternity? Absolutely not. Two conclusions can be drawn from all this. I do not intend to voice the first, and the second is that the passing millennia of history have destroyed for us the critically important historical context of what occurred.
Secondly, speaking of Akonia's execution. It is generally little known to the public how it was carried out, but those who know, know that it was an atrocity such as not every barbarian or savage applies to the enemies of their tribe. Why? For what purpose? Out of anger or as some strange ritual? Perhaps the participants of the execution wanted to obtain a part of her powers? To me, this remains a mystery. It is certainly not something that the All-Mother or any sane person would approve of.
Thirdly, those times were marked by a war with cosmic invaders. In our society, there still exists a historically meaningful hostility toward the concept of otherworldly aliens. When meteorites fall from the sky, hideous monsters level settlements to the ground and carry out massacres, it is perfectly obvious that something like this must not continue, and the final price paid with the lives of the population—to use the language of cold-hearted politicians—must not be forgotten. Arselia and her companion Akonia both shed countless amounts of blood to protect the very existence of life on Anuzish from destruction. However, what do we see after six thousand years? Hostility toward the concept of otherworldly invaders still exists—mostly in the minds of the clergy—yet the name of Akonia is thrown around negatively by any child who has barely learned to speak. Doesn't something like this seem strange to you? It raises questions for me, the answers to which I might not want to hear.
And so... what conclusion can we draw from all this? Is a revision of history necessary after all? Perhaps a lustration of the individuals involved in forming a deliberately biased narrative? After all, one should not forget that man is sinful and prone to vices; we could just observe this even in the example of chthonic saints.
...But no and no. Even if some things in our current reality, which today seem to be the only correct and natural ones—like breathing or a heartbeat—were formed erroneously or intentionally in a certain form incapable of depicting the overall picture... I can believe that this could have been done with good intentions, or that at that time, in troubled times, there was no other choice to unite the hearts of people who had been struck. In the end, we are all living beings, and universal survival lies in our interests. There are mistakes, and criminal misunderstandings. I firmly believe that no bad person would EVER bind their life to the service of Arselia (or Anuzish in a broader sense)—this applies both to the representatives of the clergy who brought this six-thousand-year history to us, and to Akonia herself, who stood against the enemy forces who started a war of extermination with fire and sword. If she had sincerely wanted to betray and destroy Arselia, she would have done so in the darkest and hardest hour for all of us, allowing an alien force to consume our world; however, such a scenario did not happen. I believe in all this, but what I know for sure is that ressentiment toward anything does not benefit your soul. Whether it be a neighboring state that several hundred or thousand years ago started an unjust war of aggression against you, or your dislike of a specific person grown from an unfair criminal misunderstanding, or perhaps a feeling of inferiority and regret slowly eating away at your soul bit by bit day after day. You can channel even a fleeting impulse of destructive rage into a conditional "good" if you approach it—as contradictory as it may sound—with a cool head, a pure heart, and honest intentions; but for long-term existence, a human needs a positive agenda, and nothing else. I do not see how the vilification of Akonia contributes to this in the years 975-6, so returning to the original question... The All-Mother granted us freedom of thought and will not to be driven into a narrative pen. I suggest that every person finally think for themselves, however difficult and uncomfortable it may be, and draw their own conclusion about these historical events.
5. Church of Anuzish/Arselia, New Tradition, Lugranism, Liberation, Luensian Ethics, Atheism, worship of celestials and otherworldly deities: which of these currents are viable and which are not?
Church of Anuzish. Wherever you live, you will always encounter supporters of technological progress who sincerely believe that they have every right to subject the world to their will: cut down forests, level mountains, drain seas, and turn rivers backward. It is not always easy to argue with this, because, for example, it is considered quite acceptable to chop down one tree or break one mountain with a pickaxe, and if so, why can't the same be done on an industrial scale? This will be one of the many contradictions that inquisitive supporters will throw your way with an expression of their own intellectual superiority. However, any sane person understands that a particularity does not define a generality; trimming a stray hair is not identical to shaving them all off. Anuzish is not just a buzzword or some invented saint, but the All-Mother, our immediate habitat, thanks to whose air, water, food, warmth, and hospitality we exist at all. There are three basic things that every person must respect: parents, kin, nature. All these concepts are kinship-related by nature, have the same root, and represent iterations of the same concept on a larger scale. Therefore, as long as we live on Anuzish, I see no reason for the veneration of her to lose popularity among people who do not suffer from mental illnesses. Of all the options listed in this question, I support this one the most.- Church of Arselia. I will not go deep into this subject, as I have already indirectly indicated my opinion of it in the previous essay. To summarize: I in no way diminish the merits of this teaching and its followers, and I believe that their work served humanity well during the transition period after the most tragic catastrophe in its history. And despite the absolute necessity of honoring ancestors and the great sacrifices of the past, one cannot survive forever on this alone; a human still generally needs a positive agenda—some ideals capable of defining the boundaries of the ethically permissible for them, granting hope to their heart, and leading their people to prosperity. Otherwise, sooner or later, their mind will be swallowed by new degenerative currents of thought, which will completely displace traditional ones and have nothing in common with the spiritual. Alas—this is a historical and empirical fact of life for any human society, in any era and in any territory; in fact, we are already observing this process. Therefore, in my subjective view, this current should merge with the previous one, adapt new meanings for itself, and perhaps rethink the previous ones.
- New Tradition. These are currents with historical meaning, and perhaps, of all of them, the sect of harmony even appeals to me, correlating with some of my own views, however... They all move away from the spiritual side of beliefs toward the material, being precisely a symptom of the presence of a social demand for the changes I outlined in the previous point. Translating views into a materialistic plane leads us away from religion toward ideology, and that is murky water and a vast space for rumors and abuse. "Man and society must be subordinated to such a set of infallible ideals..." — ok, says... who? An imperfect, mortal human, prone to sin and passions, who derived them, limited by their subjective understanding and life experience, and the historical era in which they exist? A person can be excellent, their awareness of life and experience can be irreproachable, both in objective criteria and at the level subjectively necessary for their nation or kin. But will their ideas be relevant 100, 500, 1000 years later? Will they be relevant for any other human communities, or for a changed historical situation? Alas, such a thing is impossible to calculate. Therefore, these teachings, however momentarily meaningful they may be, I consider a symptom of a general crisis of worldview, and therefore—a transient event.
- Lugranism. Perhaps the main example of the perversion of human ideals in favor of a narrow-minded view of life. Let us for a few moments take upon ourselves the thankless mission of whitewashing the motives of this teaching.
The rejection of social classes and distinctions—that is, man is a man to man. Wonderful on paper, isn't it? However, some people inevitably have ressentiment toward others, others have a predisposition to certain types of activities more than thirds, thirds are simply more energetic than the first, and so on and so forth.
The rejection of private property, the establishment of a minimum of labor and needs—both in theory should benefit the state according to estimates in terms of final output, but in fact contradict the existence of individual consciousness. A prisoner sewing mittens as punishment is generally capable of doing it well, but will he do it when only a specific daily quota is required of him? Suppose he does it when in the mood; however, in the absence of other incentives, this task will be recorded in his consciousness as meaningless. By means of what do some states and societies win, while others lose? Sometimes it is the excessive presence of a specific resource, however, such a state of affairs is usually caused by something. The general trend we can see is that the people living in such a society have a thirst for life, in the form of certain life-affirming ideals that give them a competitive advantage over other societies. I cannot call universal leveling such a thing; even from the point of view of wanting to drag all other successful societies into its swamp—it is an impossible task simply because their life-affirming principles are stronger than yours.
Propaganda of the teaching abroad— ...ok. This point in no way helps the society, but simply exposes its imperfection and malicious intent to the public.
Establishing priority on education, medicine, and strengthening the armed forces—yes, a good point. Alas, against the background of the previous ones, it looks like damage control, to give this teaching at least something positive against the backdrop of a ressentiment-driven agenda.
In total, I consider this teaching a failure.
- Liberation. Lugranism seen from the side. Something slightly less focused on the ressentiment of specific historical conditions and periods, but still rejecting the life-affirming principles of spiritual views, elevating to an absolute... what exactly? "I do whatever I want"? A maximally childish view of reality, devoid of any substance. Every child sooner or later realizes the moral and physical boundaries of things, and I do not see this "teaching" having potential.
- Luensian Ethics. A more useful and life-affirming artificial teaching compared to others, in which I see no obvious flaws, however, all its ideals are universal, and if desired, they can be perfectly transposed into almost any mentally healthy view, starting with the default veneration of Anuzish. Therefore, I see this belief simply as a reaction to the stagnant view of the Church of Arselia, which tries to draw life-affirming ideals and reject ressentiment-based ones. Another reason for the esteemed clergy to think about what a human actually needs.
- Atheism. No comment.
- Worship of celestials and otherworldly deities. I am forced to return once again to what I just said: this is a logical reaction to the view of the Church of Arselia, which drifts into a ressentiment-based toxic narrative instead of providing people with constructive ideals that resonate with their hearts.
Think carefully yourselves—who are these people, whom the representatives of the Arselian clergy surely hate with all their souls? Probably desperate heretics who want to deconstruct our current system? Maybe underdeveloped savage cultists? ...Far from it. All these people are the "lost electorate" of both the Church and the aforementioned teachings: lugranism, atheism, liberation, all sorts of sects... People in need of life-affirming principles, but who at the same time do not wish to discard the spiritual; experiencing disgust for materially-oriented matters that are vicious by nature and detached from the higher component, and longing for something divine, which the Church of Arselia currently cannot provide them.
Do you understand? These are—though misguided—perhaps the primary believers on Anuzish, seeking salvation and redemption, but unable to find it under the current system of views. They might be happy to reject any divine plan as meaningless, but unfortunately, their IQ is a three-digit number. They dream that their life will ultimately not be in vain, and that they will find some way to overcome existential horror, and that they will find a method to deal with the grayness and blandness of a materialistic mode of existence. That is exactly why they seek new meanings outside Anuzish—solely because the current ones do not satisfy their demands.
All this only brings us back to the problem I pointed out above with the Church of Arselia—no matter how correct and traditional your view may be, people need a positive agenda, otherwise, in the end, it will lead to catastrophe.
6. Succession: do you consider it acceptable for the adopted princess Ayano to become the next queen of Margela and empress of Velfern? (note: in the history of Margela, nothing like this has happened and it does not correspond to the constitution written by Arual).
Something like this is not an unprecedented event in history. Therefore, I... consider acceptable that which makes sense, for which there is a social demand and political will. Both, and the third, depend on the current situation. If our times require desperate measures that cannot be solved under the current paradigm of inheritance, then one should weigh the factors: will the existential problem be solved as a result of this event, will the people accept something like this, will the ruling class express consent to something like this? If the answer to all this is "yes," then the only barrier remaining is the question of the consequences of this decision. If something like this in the short or long term leads to the collapse of the empire, as the lesser of two evils, and to the suffering or deaths of its population—as the greater in this dichotomy—then probably, it is not the optimal scenario.However, something like this is very difficult to calculate in a space of variables, so what one can rely on in such planning are specific conditions and the personality of the "heir" themselves. Alas, our life mostly teaches us that people and their intentions are not always benevolent, just as benevolent intentions from corresponding people do not always lead to the desired result. However, this is the only option for planning available to us, and rejecting it leads to nothing productive. By dismissing this method as meaningless, we effectively renounce any attempts to consider ourselves rational agents in our reality, and that is a decadent and defeatist method of thinking.
To summarize... I do not think the adopted princess is threatened by something like this, given the fact that her title places no legal obligations before her, and the previous emperor, besides Her Majesty, has two other heirs. However... in the event that this issue somehow materializes in our reality, where something like this could be discussed seriously, it would signify a truly desperate situation and a state of existential threat for the entire nation, which would include even such a possibility of succession.
