The end of (our) history

‘The Death of the Grave Digger’, by Carlos Schwabe

Progress, this great heresy of decay.

Charles Baudelaire

In 1992 Francis Fukuyama wrote a book entitled ‘The End of History and the Last Man’. The main idea of this book was that history has been gradually progressing towards a time, in the not so distant future, where there will be one liberal democratic global state. He believes we are living in the last stages before this global state, founded in Western style liberal democracy and capitalism. All the events of history were an evolution towards this most humane, rational, and ideal world order, a near utopia of sorts. We are now nearing the great ‘end of history’.

However, I cannot help but see this as a laughable notion at best. It is unfortunately a common sentiment shared by many who view history as being linear, and not cyclical. Not only linear, though, but also progressive. The instituting of liberal democracy must be accepted, by all polite company, as a progression in comparison to the preceding eras of monarchy, theocracy, and empires. It would be heretical to modern doctrine to accept anything short of this. Yet for all the boasting of our superiority over those of the past, which having progressed past them obviously implies, we are incredibly ignorant in comparison.

History is not linear but, if it were, I would believe it would be grounds for dismissing the notion of human evolution altogether. Oswald Spengler proposed a more reliable theory of history*, one which demonstrates the cyclical nature of humanity. We do not; as those who adhere to a Whig view of history would have us believe, constantly progress. Instead civilization cycles through four stages which correspond to the change of seasons. A civilization begins with its spring, moves into its summer, then begins to decline with its fall, and enters a dark age during its winter.

For anyone who has paid attention, we are certainly living in Western civilization’s winter. Culture has died, politics has been utterly corrupted, morality has been abandoned, and sanity has fled our shores. This is not the end of history, but it is the end of our history. Upon reflection it may be said the West was a Faustian civilization built upon a deal with the devil. We gave up Heaven to gain the world. But the riches of this world are fleeting. All our gold is sand, swept away in the winds of time.

Think of our haughtiness to suggest that this, our style of society, is the apex of civilization. So great is their pride, modern man believes his madness to really be a triumph. Unfortunately modern man is nothing more than Nietzsche’s der letzte Mensch (Last Man). His greatest wish is comfort and security. So long as this is provided to him, he shall keep up his endorsement of the current order. When one or the other is threatened, he becomes angry, but his complacency triumphs. Der letzte Mensch believes himself above the “ignorance” of the past. All that has really changed is his degree of comfort and security.

Unfortunate for him, nothing lasts forever. Society is not “progressing”, it is regressing. He shall soon pay witness to this regression. For the fortunate few, they will be secure enough to not concern themselves too much with the inevitable problems which shall become all too obvious for the middle and lower classes. Government shall become more abusive, moral decay shall continue, race replacement will accelerate, general wealth shall decline, and with each passing day the bright light which once shone forth from our perceived future shall grow ever dimmer. At such a point the realization will occur that his comfort and security were impermanent, that he was not above the problems of his ancestors, and that his idealistic image of reality was horribly flawed.

Man is the same today as he was five hundred years ago just with new technology and more outlandish ideas. There are heretics today just as there were during Middle Ages. Science is still being oppressed for its dangerous theories. And government is at best as insidious. You can change the name from “witch” to “racist”, the theories from “heliocentric” to “race and IQ correlation”, and government from “divine right” to “liberal democracy”, but that does not make man any more enlightened.

In ancient Rome the concept of savages being men before the creation of a civilization would be incomprehensible. Savages were instead the remnants of a civilization that decayed and became corrupted. There is nothing noble about them as many would have us believe. Man is not inherently good, but he has the inherent potential for good. The inverse of this is our modern way of thinking. People are naturally good but only do bad things on account of some external pressure. Remove these pressures and people will all live harmoniously.

Societies begin to decay at the exact moment they begin to abandon their attempts at striving towards virtuosity. When the eyes of man are turned earthward, rather than up, he falls. What necessarily follow are all forms of debauchery and sin. The greatest invested effort is towards nurturing the system which promotes these vices. Even with the immorality of Rome preceding its unforgettable fall it could never rival the transgressions of the modern West. Our fall, when it inevitably arrives, shall be distinctly different, most likely due to its gradual nature, but also more thorough. The risk is permanent elimination.

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius (Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad), and we are completely mad. This is the end of our history, for better or worse. At least, it is the end of Western civilization as we know it. T. S. Eliot wrote** about the world ending in a more tragic way than complete destruction, I think it speaks best for the end of our Western civilization.

This is the way the world ends,

This is the way the world ends,

This is the way the world ends,

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

* The Decline of the West vol. 1, vol. 2

** The Hollow Men

Why marry?

I was curious about why people should even marry. It was not due to me necessarily supporting or opposing marriage, just curiosity. So I looked in the Bible and it is pretty clear about why you should marry,

“But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband.”

–          1 Corinthians 7:2

“But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

–          1 Corinthians 7:9

In these two passages, the Apostle Paul suggests marriage only to those who cannot contain their passions. He states that his life path, that of celibacy, is preferable to that of marriage. The reason being, I presume, that the celibate is called to a life focused upon God where the married person is called to a life focused upon the flesh; their own, that of their spouse, and the creation of a new generation. This is not to say choosing the path of marriage is bad, of course, how else would we “go forth and multiply” without sinning? That a married man is generally not accepted as a (Catholic) Priest is also for this reason; he cannot as intensely focus upon God if he is married.

So then marriage is only recommended for the person who has an intense want to have sex. There are no other clearly stated reasons. But for those who yearn for sex, there is an expectation to rear a new generation. To remain without sexual sin one must also remain abstinent in marriage, which means in no way intentionally preventing the creation of new life. This means no use of artificial contraception or certain acts. For the man or woman unconcerned about living in perpetual sin, they may do as they wish. However, for those who actually believe, it is necessary to abstain from sin.

Men and women are left with two well defined choices. One is a life of perpetual celibacy, free from marriage, fornication, and masturbation, while focusing entirely upon service to God; or a life of marriage with sex, children, and love, while focusing upon the flesh and God. Most people would obviously choose the life of marriage. How many would opt to forgo a husband or wife, children, and sex? Those who would are the select few and they have a particular role to play in this life, one which is just as, if not more, important than those who opted to marry.

If you want to be scriptural, when someone says “sex is not a legitimate reason to marry”, you can tell them it is the only reason we are to marry. Should you not want sex, then you should not marry. It is better to dedicate your life to another vocation which better fits you. Admitting, “Yes, I must marry because I must have sex” is not wrong, it is just honest. If you do not feel that way, then why are you marrying? Why would you marry a person you do not have an intense want to have sex with? Remember that within marriage your body is now owned by your husband or wife as you own theirs and sex is never to be rejected except upon mutual consent to dedicate time towards prayer.

“The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.”

–          1 Corinthians 7:4, 5

Eyeball licking craze in Japan

Here’s a really weird story from Japan. Apparently it has become popular among students to express their affection for each other through licking eyeballs. As if people are not doing strange enough things lately, now we can add this to the list. What made someone first come up with the idea? Who thinks, “You know what would be really hot? Licking your eyeball.” It should come as no surprise this developed in Japan, that country is known for some bizarre things. I just hope it doesn’t come to the United States, we don’t need anymore problems.

We’ve all heard about people doing strange things for love, but Japanese students are taking love-induced madness to a whole new level – and putting their health at risk in the process.

The latest craze sweeping through Japan is ‘oculolinctus’ – eyeball licking as an expression of affection between young lovers.

However, it has led to a surge in cases of eye infections and can even cause blindness, doctors have warned.

[…]

But eyeball licking has not only taken off in Japan.

Elektrika Energias, 29, a student in the U.S. Virgin Islands told The Huffington Post: ‘My boyfriend started licking my eyeballs years ago and I just loved it.

‘I’m not with him anymore, but I still like to ask guys to lick my eyeballs. I just love it because it turns me on, like sucking on my toes. It makes me feel all tingly.’

Daily Mail

The Bottom Of America Found

Chateau Heartiste

After searching desolate psychological topography for years, a team of Chateau adventurers believe they have found the very bottom of America.

Discrimination against fat strippers? Wow, just wow. I don’t even. I stopped reading at…

The inevitable logic of misfit liberals’ exaggerated sensitivity to harm and faaaaaiiiirness is that anything that hurts someone’s feelings somewhere, justified or not, and as long as that someone who hurts isn’t the ur-oppressor white male, will come to be seen as discrimination requiring legal correctives. And so we find ourselves wading through the rectal effluvium of America confronting smelly wildebeasts like the thing above LOUDLY and PROUDLY proclaiming that fat strippers who earn less money, or who don’t get sufficient stage time from their (blind) club managers, are being discriminated against by the patriarchy, or by men, or by whatever boogeyman term of fart happens to have lodged itself in their donut-drenched and -holed…

View original post 182 more words