>>519652018
>Imam
Before Christianity sperged out with iconoclast Jewish hubris like they do today, most pagans knew 'daemonia' to be neutral, like humans.
In early Greek thought, particularly in Homer and Hesiod, daimōn did not carry any moral polarity at all; it meant simply a divine or spiritual force acting unseen, a 'dispenser' of fate or lot (daiō, 'to divide, apportion'). Thus, daimones were powers who allotted fortune or misfortune. Even Zeus, in Homer, is sometimes said to act dia daimona, 'through a spirit', meaning through some divine agency rather than direct will.
By the time of Plato, the term had acquired a more articulated metaphysical sense. In the Symposium, Socrates speaks of his daimōnion, a guiding voice, never telling him what to do, but warning him what not to do. This shows the daemon as a moral intermediary, a personal tutelary spirit, distinct from a god yet sharing in divine intelligence. Plato in the Symposium explicitly defines the daimon as 'a being between god and man' (metaxu theou kai anthrōpou). Later Platonists and Neoplatonists, especially Plotinus and Iamblichus, systematised this into hierarchies of daemonic beings ranging from benevolent guides to malevolent, sublunary forces, much like angelic and demonic gradations in later Christian angelology.
In Hellenic usage, daimōn could be good (agathodaimōn) or malign (kakodaimōn), but the base term was morally neutral, it indicated quality of being, not ethical alignment. The adjectives agathos (good) or kakos (bad) were necessary to specify the daemon’s nature. The one-track mind of 'everything I don't understand is le demon!' is an easy way for kikes to radicalise retards.