Last modified

“Intellectual vulgarity depresses me more than bad news.”
“Let us not give stupid opinions the pleasure of scandalizing us.”
Gómez Dávila


Topics:

“Socio-sexual hierarchy” | Reality of pleasure/pain | “Coping” | Eugenics | Existence a gift | Tough fighting guys | Muscles | “Female eugenics” | “Lower. Your. Standards.” | “Game” | Virgins = losers | Christianity and procreation | MGTOW | Survival as metric | “Committing genocide against one’s own family line” | “Schoupenhauer” | No sex in Garden Eden | “God gave you your body, IQ, whatever” | “A high IQ is so horrible to have!” | “Life is short” | “I am so smart it hurts” | “Every man wants ‘hot’ women” | So many people, why not commit suicide? | Aquinas, Kierkegaard, hierarchy | Outbreeding/Inbreeding | “Unmarried men want civilization dead” | Arbeit macht frei | “Sex is natural, sex is good” | The “psychology” of the average Vox Day commenter | Mount Athos: no women (any female) allowed | Sam Harris | “Aliens so important! Would change everything! Rejoice!” | “Fancy pants” | I am too arrogant and just an awful person | “It’s your own fault that x!” | “The Wall” | “Getting lots of sex is praiseworthy!”

[back]

“Socio-sexual hierarchy”

Written: 2019-07-13
Updated: 2019-07-23
Updated: 2019-09-13/14
Updated: 2019-09-19

(This has become a rather long, evolving entry.)

The true hierarchy is class. Unfortunately, it does not exist anymore as it did in the past. Lately, we have even experienced what Paul Fussell called prole drift.

The hierarchy of alphas, betas etc. is not applicable to past societies, especially those in which good breeding was common and expected. “Alpha behavior” would have been seen as very rude. It is actually hard to imagine that in the past, at least during more or less civilized ages, say, the times of Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant or Goethe, such a system would have been taken seriously, not to speak of imagining one of the greats to seriously come up with it.
It is telling that it only came up in our decadent and vulgar age.

More importantly, geniuses, of course, cannot be ranked in this rather pseudo-scientific system — as scientific as psychoanalysis. Jack London’s White Fang is hardly applicable to Goethe’s Weimar or any other era of high culture.

In Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire, Hans Jürgen Eysenck writes:

Freud himself, so it has been said, is the only man who has been able to impress his own neurosis on the world, and remould humanity in his own image.

Saying “Nietzsche was a gamma” is ridiculous. Nietzsche, whatever one may think of him, was brilliant, a genius. I rather see this ranking system as a form of revenge by the mediocre against those who are excellent, geniuses in particular; who are then denigrated, despite their incredible gifts.
Especially since it is not bound to intelligence or education: anybody can almost be anything. An uneducated, unintelligent man can be an “alpha”, whereas someone of good breeding, who is intelligent and well-educated is classified as “gamma” (Nietzsche, for example).

As I understand it, this is even part of how this supposed “hierarchy” works — I just wonder why anyone should take it seriously then.

I do not understand why it now dominates the discourse. These greek label terms are thrown around all the time as if they meant something, forgetting that many outside do not even have a clue what they mean.
It seems cultish, annoying and hardly comparable to the high quality work of real rightists and reactionaries — I am speaking of Moeller Bruck, Spengler, Georg Quabbe, Wilhelm Stapel, Edgar Julius Jung; and more importantly Donoso Cortés, de Maistre or de Bonald, let alone Goméz Dávila.

It is claimed that the hierarchy describes how men rank or see other men, but it is perfectly clear that most who make use of it are using it to rank how men are seen by women (which has a lot to do with looks, not attitude). Even in the first case, class has been the real ranking system in the past that divided men. An “alpha peasant” is ludicrous. You think Louis XIV would have cared? Being an alpha among homeless people — where is that relevant? If there are indeed alphas among homeless people, why attach value to this label? A tough guy with alpha characteristics and nine years of high school working at MacDonald’s on the one side — and on the other side someone like Nietzsche, academically successful. The latter will be seen as gamma or beta if among the former and his clique, though a Nietzsche is higher status-wise from a general point of view compared to the former. Though it is hard to believe they would even meet. Why would they have anything to do with each other?

And how did this dynamic play out among, say, Goethe and Schiller? Nietzsche and Burckhardt?

Which brings us back to the problem that 1) a man who derives his self-worth from outside himself, especially from how women, who, as is known, are not even smarter on average than men, perceive him, seems rather fragile and not at all masculine; and 2) if one is ugly or has a grotesque face, no amount of “alpha attitude” will make up for that. No matter how often it is pointed out that the hierarchy applies not just how good some men are with women, it is pretty clear that this is the meat of it.

The harsh truth applies again: genetics is destiny. A good looking man will always have a more positive effect on everyone around him; he will be treated better. He can get away with doing and saying things an ugly man cannot. (See also what Clayton Atreus wrote about it.)

Those who deny this are just as delusional about reality as the leftists who still believe that intelligence is not hereditary, that everybody can achieve anything academically. Who believe programs like Head Start are a good idea.

Head Start actually shows how important the truth genetics is destiny is. No amount of environmental influence, no amount of learning will turn someone with below average or even just average intelligence into someone capable of getting a Ph.D; just as no amount of training and self-improvement will magically transform someone from being ugly to becoming a model, or even good looking. Genetics is destiny.

Please deal with the facts. The sooner, the better, because then we are able to do something about it. This is the whole reason I am making this point. We need eugenics. We need to prevent people from being born who suffer all their lives due to their genetic traits, people like me, for example.

Even Vox Day agrees in his Darkstream 340: Life is more than suffering (around 33:05). His reasoning is pretty dubious, though. It does not matter if one is talking about a “one in a hundred” or a “one in two” chance (in terms of being genetically predisposed to psychotic mental illnesses): if you are mentally ill, you have no business in having children. If you do, you should be killed. You are rolling dice. Full stop.

Leaders, dishonest men — superficial traits usually attributed to the ranks on the hierarchy can be found in many men.
At this point, it is clear that its goal is to denigrate individuals, since calling someone “gamma” or “beta” is obviously meant as an insult — a “loser”. (Especially sexually, which is not compatible with Christianity.)

Even academically, from a status and class point of view, Nietzsche was anything but a loser: he was only 24 years old when he became a professor, the youngest in Germany at that time. Nietzsche was also described by most as very genteel, completely the opposite of how he comes across in his writings.
It therefore does not matter at all if it predicts certain behaviours — the motivation is clear: to denigrate others and feel superior to them. How many women one attracts really is the proxy for success here, which is highly dubious.

And from a Christian perspective, it hardly makes sense at all to take the ranking serious. It is like thanking God for being born male or European — see Luke 18:10-14.

I would also conclude that many of the traits are genetic anyway, and can hardly be changed or overcome.

Addendum:

An interesting case is Christopher Langan. His comment makes me question the validity of this hierarchy even more. From his post Comments on Nazi Germany:

Nazi Germany was an evil reaction to another preexisting kind of evil. Unfortunately, while Nazi Germany has disappeared, the coherent evil that inspired it has not, and this is a large part of our current problem.

Right. As far as Germany is concerned, everyone is forever knocking the so-called “nazi stud farms” of the 1930’s and 40’s. But before one can even dream of doing this in any meaningful way, one must consider the alternatives available in the present reproductively degenerate environment … and we’re not just talking about genocidally replacing indigenous Europeans with maladaptive foreigners. (As I say, the situation here is nearly as bad. As one of the premier bouncers in New York, if not the best-known of all, I was nothing if not accessible to women. That I didn’t get any reproductive play on Eastern LI, where rich and pampered women abound, and that I simultaneously watched these decadent party girls having out-of-wedlock children by a succession of dunces, creeps, and minority players, is really quite informative when you come right down to it.) Truly, the Caucasian genome is in freefall.

(2019-09-13/14):

Additionally, even if one would call a Pascal or a Nietzsche a gamma or omega, who cares? They will still be relevant as long as our world exists, just as Plato is still relevant. They will be with us when the alphas and their progeny are long dead and gone. It’s also rather asinine to lump them together with average joes using the label “gamma”. They were great men — geniuses.

Also, many psychopaths can be said to being good at the “social game”. I hardly see how that can be revered.

And in the end, it boils down to suicide being the only philosophical problem. If you understand this, then you have to choose between believing in God or being an atheist and acting on it.

I wrote this because I followed some blogs due to immigration becoming a real annoyance. Then this hierarchy stuff came up and was taken so seriously as if it was some kind of Gospel truth. And this is where I became sceptical: you cannot praise the vulgar “alpha” behavior and at the same time be a Christian. You have to choose. And even as an atheist, I would not have to praise it either, I could choose to value intellectual excellence more than sexual prowess or money-making ability.

A rather long entry, but in short: you cannot save the West without putting a halt to such sexually decadent behavior, for which both men and women are to blame.

Bruce Charlton is correct on this one: the sexual revolution has to be reversed, it is one of the reasons the West is dying. And it would die easily if Europeans took their faith seriously again. The objections above still apply, especially regarding class.

(2019-09-19):

Another point is that apparently, the beta often has the former girlfriend of the alpha. Now, how is this Christian at all? I am not sure if it’s claimed anywhere that the hierarchy is applicable to any society at any time, but it certainly is not. (I made this point above already.)

Given that it was a great risk for Kierkegaard’s fiancee Regine Olsen to visit him alone in his flat — if known, it would have been a scandal —, one can imagine how people during Christian times would have reacted to having a “girlfriend”. And Denmark’s Christianity was already in its death throes at that time.

Then it’s claimed that no one cares how smart you are, no one cares about your intelligence — while constantly touting one’s own — but apparently, we should care about the “alpha” studs who have so many women? Why? Why is it okay to brag about this, and not about how smart and educated someone is? Imagine someone with two or three PhDs or an IQ of >180 and constantly bragging about it. In both cases it’s pride. Also, Andrew Wardle did not even have a penis and had around 100 women. It is extremely obnoxious behavior.
(Another observation is that the so-called incels are denigrated as being sex-obsessed, while the alphas are praised for exactly that behavior. Now is this world crap? It indeed is.)

Women are simply another crutch for most men, just like drugs or work. Many would most likely kill themselves without them.

As Pascal already knew:

All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.

Says Gómez Dávila:

The people with whom we speak every day and our favorite authors cannot belong to the same zoological species.

The key event of this century is the demographic explosion of idiotic ideas.

Wisdom, in this century, consists above all in knowing how to put up with vulgarity without becoming upset.

The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.

By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has been gradually losing his knowledge of man.

Observing life is too interesting to waste time living it.

The modern world obliges us to refute foolish ideas, instead of silencing the fools.

Systematic reductions to single terms (pleasure and pain, self-interest, economics, sex, etc.) fabricate likenesses of intelligibility that seduce the ignorant.

In order to exploit man in peace, it is most convenient to reduce him first to sociological abstractions.

Prophets, philosophers, politicians, all fail in the end.
But there is nothing more absurd than to write their history as a chain of defeats.
Every great man is a victory.

Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre.

An outlandish idea becomes ridiculous when several people share it.
Either one walks with everybody, or one walks alone.
One should never walk in a group.

Vulgarity consists, essentially, in being on first name terms with Plato or Goethe.

The self-important man’s lack of importance is sufficient revenge for us.

Modern stupidities are more irritating than ancient stupidities because their proselytes seek to justify them in the name of reason.

Why deceive ourselves? Science has not answered a single important question.

The rapid evolution of a society destroys its customs.
And imposes on the individual, in place of the silent education of traditions, the reins and the whip of laws.

The defeated reactionary always retains the option of entertaining himself with the victor’s simplistic ideas.

The only man who saves himself from intellectual vulgarity is the man who ignores what it is fashionable to know.

[back]

Reality of pleasure/pain

Written: 2019-07-13
Updated: 2019-07-23

Hardly anyone is so dumb as to regret on his deathbed not having eaten some delicious chocolate cake fifty years ago because of having been on a strict diet; and hardly anyone sane will regret that he did not have sex or more sex a few decades ago. At that point, it would hardly be relevant anyway even if he did have it. Except for being penitential about it.
(A similar thought occured to Kierkegaard: the different views of a young man just starting out in life and a man lying on his deathbed. Once I find the journal entry, I will add it.

Pain is positive, pleasure is negative.

Worse still, how is the sex act itself worthy of praise? All great cultures have seen sex as something “unclean”, admitted even by the Jesuit Augustin Arndt [bibelpedia.com] in his commentary on the Bible (Vulgate-German [archive.org]).

How long does sexual intercourse even last on average? It is questionable why it should be revered so strongly. People like to “show off” with hot wives. But how does that even work? She could be a real pain, a Xanthippe. Not only that, it could very well be that sex is seen as so important because in reality it really isn’t, and it isn’t even as pleasurable as many claim it to be. However, to not lose the one crutch most people cling to the strongest, they’ll simply lie about it instead. Trying to imply how great and important it is, and that everyone who does not get it is a loser.

Ranking women from 1 to 10 in terms of just looks gives away the sheer lust of those who make use of this ranking system; why is a 10 who is a prole a 10? So looks cannot be the only criteria.

Deriving one’s self-worth from outside, especially from women — this is hardly masculine. Seems rather fragile. That it might be satisfying to feel wanted does not disprove that it is not masculine. Some are envious of people fluent in Latin and Greek, or of great geniuses and their many incredible talents. Which I readily admit I am.

In the end, everyone knows that our vulgar modern world is nothing worth praising, and least of it is the sexual debauchery taking place in it. After all, even someone as vulgar as Roosh, who made a living selling decadent literature not only regretted his past “conquests”, but called our culture sex-obsessed. Which it is. “Casual” or “easy” sex is a sign that a civilization is in its death throes.

Let us not forget that most of our ancestors usually married once and were done with it. They also raised children. A working marriage might be something to be envious of; not the guy with a hot but mentally ill “girl” — most likely a prole girl anyway. (Despite its flaws: Paul Fussell’s “Class” is a worth a read.)

Try grumpy old Schopenhauer for a change; or just read the Bible.

To quote Gómez Dávila:

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

[back]

“Coping”

Written: 2019-07-13
Updated: 2019-07-23

Is nonsense. There is no “perfect life”. We are all losers in the end. I’d even go further and say that from the standpoint of atheism, there is no point in existence at all, so that even the Dantes, Goethes, Shakespeares are of no value. However, they might have at least a little bit of value, given that they left great legacies. But this fades, too, when our sun goes supernova and swallows the earth. Or when man goes extinct in any other way.

(See also MGTOW.)

Being a Christian, however, I side with Don Colacho:

Man is important only if it is true that a God has died for him.

I would not live for even a fraction of second if I stopped feeling the protection of God’s existence.

We live because we do not view ourselves with the same eyes with which everybody else views us.

We spend a life trying to understand what a stranger understands at a glance: that we are just as insignificant as the rest.

[back]

Eugenics

Written: 2019-07-13
Updated: 2019-08-05
Updated: 2019-09-16
Updated: 2019-11-13
Update: 2019-11-17

Is a no-brainer, really. Do you want to be ugly? Dumb? Sick? Mentally ill? Or your children to be like that?

Surely, one of the dumbest “arguments” against it is calling it a “pseudo-science”.

Even an imbecile like Richie Dawkins understands (The Greatest Show on Eearth):

Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters. The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising. Who would have thought, for example, that dogs could be bred for sheep-herding skills, or “pointing”, or bull-baiting?

Now let us hear Matt Ridley (from Genome, p. 297):

This brief history of eugenics leads me to one firm conclusion. What is wrong with eugenics is not the science, but the coercion. Eugenics is like any other programme that puts the social benefit before the individual’s rights. It is a humanitarian, not a scientific crime. There is little doubt that eugenic breeding would “work” for human beings just as works for dogs and dairy cattle. It would be possible to reduce the incidence of many mental disorders and improve the health of the population by selective breeding. But there is also little doubt that it could only be done very slowly at a gigantic cost in cruelty, injustice and oppression. Karl Pearson once said, in an answer to Wedgewood: “What is social is right and there is no definition of right beyond that.” That dreadful statement should be the epitaph of eugenics.

(Ridley is wrong about the “cruelty”, of course. It is cruel to bring sick, mentally ill people into this world.)

Was Adam hunchbacked?

Genetics is destiny.

Addendum: See also this interesting article by Harold Blake Walker, Pastor Emeritus of the First Presbyterian Church of Evanston (IL), former columnist for the Chicago Tribune, former president of the Board of Trustees of the McCormick Theological Seminary (article written most likely between the late seventies to mid-eighties): Right to life is great, but not for the unwanted.

I have no idea how to implement this in a sensible and “humane” manner; though I defend eugenics since it is often argued that it is pseudo-scientific, or inhumane (see the Ridley quote above). The latter accusation being even more imbecilic than the former.

(2019-11-13):

Nikola Tesla and Francis Crick were in favor of eugenics, too. Not that I find them in any way inspiring or anything, quite the opposite. But, again, they realized how important it is that people like me be spared this nonsensical and awful existence you all praise so much because you simply are in deep, deep love with yourself.

(2019-11-17):

One reason people often get defensive when someone claims that genetics is destiny, that genes shape you more than your environment is that it makes them feel bad about themselves. Some even acknowledge this, saying that it gives them the feeling or hope that they can still improve. I believed this myself for some time, but finally I had to give in to reality and realize that one’s genes play a more important role after I looked into the research. This is also why I don’t take anyone seriously who tries to make the point that nurture is more important. It can’t be. And you cannot even choose your environment or the time you’ll be living in either. I know my own limitations well enough, and if someone told me I could become a Goethe or Shakespeare or Kierkegaard, I would laugh him off.

It gives people the cosy feeling of blaming others for their failures, instead of accepting that they really had not much influence on any of their shortcomings. At best, one may blame their parents. After all, a lot gets inherited, and if I had children — as written above —, they would be the same ugly losers that I am. Or maybe blame the state, who did not sterilize those parents. And so on. But instead, they blame those who are the least responsible.

How does this fit in with my Christian worldview? Not much of a problem, really: we are responsible morally, but if I hardly graduate high school, if I am an ugly hunchback, I am not at fault for not having become a lawyer or popular with the girls. It was never in my reach, and so those who talk about “God-given talents” really are only in love with themselves, because I have no talents, I have nothing to be proud of. I’m a horrible loser.

Says Gómez Dávila:

Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.

No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.

The individual who lies to himself, just like the society that does not lie to itself, soon rots and dies.

Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.

Although it grieves the angelism of the democrat: one cannot build a civilisation with miserable biological material.

The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

Donald Trump agrees, too:

[…] you have to be born lucky in the sense that you have to have the right genes […]

[back]

“Existence is a gift”

Written: 2019-07-13
Updated: 2019-10-26

Where does the Bible teach this? The grace of God is the gift. Even atheists like Dawkins claim the same nonsense. If you are sick and ugly and a loser and clean toilets for a living, I’m certain you’d think otherwise. You like your existence. Fine. I don’t like mine, and I don’t have to, given that we ought to hate ourselves.

Apart from that: Ecclesiastes 4:3; Job 3:3; Jeremiah 20:14-18; Philippians 1:21-23. If we are saved, we can then praise God and our existence. But we are not there yet. And from an atheistic perspective, existence, in case you’ve been dealt the short straw, is just a sick joke.

(2019-10-28):

Let us not forget the nature of this analogy: a gift does not always have to be something you are glad about. I still side with my own view that God does not create us, but that most of the times, it is the free will (and lust) of others that is responsible for us existing. Even in the case of rape, it is lust that is responsible. Christ was conceived without lust. Our lowly origin is meant to humble us: Wisdom of Solomon: 7:1-2. The horrible genes I inherited I see as a result of the fall.

Gómez Dávila:

One could object to science that it easily falls into the hands of imbeciles, if religion’s case were not just as serious.

The two most insufferable types of rhetoric are religious rhetoric and the rhetoric of art criticism.

[back]

Fighting

Written: 2019-07-13

All these guys on the right who claim to be tough, doing martial arts or any other form of fighting are insane. In a civilization, this would be seen as imbecilic — after all, can you picture a Goethe or Plato in combat? Fighting a guy? This is not how great civilizations flourish. This is not what they are made out of.

But even worse: who really cares? If you’ve got a gun, you just shoot a guy. What good is Bruce Lee if I just pull the trigger and kill him?

Fight and train all you want. Just don’t claim any superiority based on it.

[back]

Muscles/gym

Written: 2019-07-13

Women like it, so we do it. So what? If women liked men driving nails through their cheeks, would you do it too? And of course it’s laughable. Even Fussell writes that a Schwarzenegger looks ridiculous in a suit. A muscular Kant or Bach?

Gómez Dávila:

The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.

The modern world demands that we approve what it should not even dare ask us to tolerate.

[back]

“Female eugenics”

Written: 2019-07-13
Updated: 2019-07-29

Probably one of the most brain-damaged ideas ever to occur to someone. Wish it were true, because then I would have been spared this awful existence. But it isn’t, and those who claim it is are mentally deranged.

Woman are just as superficial as men when it comes to sexual attraction. Eugenics only works when capable, intelligent men supervise it, or when, as Gómez Dávila calls it, a society’s “biological reason” is functioning properly. Otherwise you’ll get tons of mentally ill, ugly, dumb and immoral people. Quasimodos like myself.

Wake up, you idiots. Women are human; they are sinners; they aren’t God. They aren’t even smarter on average. So what do you expect, you imbeciles? Not that most men are any better. The whole point of eugenics is that not everyone who has children has good genes, is a “winner” or whatever.

[back]

“Lower. Your. Standards.”

Written: 2019-07-15

Also known as dysgenics or dysgenesis, because this is what it boils down to. Not only is this one-word-for-a-sentence style extremely patronizing, prideful and highly annoying, these guys do not seem to understand that what they are really preaching is dysgenics. Even someone like Sarrazin understands that it is important who is having children (though he only takes into account intelligence, not mental health or looks).

They want more ugly and dumb people in this world so that they and their children can look down on them. Just as they did on me. They simply ignore that some people see their life as a burden, that some have nothing going on for them. Being ugly, averagely intelligent, sick in my mind: you think I have a good time?
If I had children, the likelhood is high that they would be the same losers I am; I am, after all, a loser like my father. Why expect this to change suddenly? Why gamble?

These guys are also way too superficial to understand that as a physically very unattractive man, who would want a kind of supermodel as wife anyway? The contrast would be too grotesque, it would simply be unaesthetic. Being mentally ill is already a curse — but being ugly too!
It is not worth it. Any children would be losers. I have been waiting to die since I am sixteen or so. Doktor Jeep is a weakling, apart from being sex-obsessed. Being mediocre and aware of it is probably the greatest curse one has to endure.

Says Gómez Dávila:

Reading is an unsurpassable drug, because more than just the mediocrity of our lives, it allows us to escape the mediocrity of our souls.

Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre.

That’s just the way it is as someone who lost the genetic lottery — God did not give me this worthless, awful body, because He does not create us actively as He did Adam and Eve. A point one cannot stress enough. This world is fallen, and this affects our genetics too, of course.

Adam was not hunchbacked, nor did he have crooked teeth. And he was not sick either. Why did God heal sick people? Because it is not His will for people to be born sick and ugly and so on. It is he result of the fall. And this is why I believe that eugenics is Christian. God gave us our intelligence. It has been part already of Adam. Eugenics is nothing else than using this intelligence so as to prevent awful, ugly, mentally ill, loser human beings like me who hate their life all their life — from at least fourteen or so — until the bitter end.

I mean, I am an adult, and people still make fun of me. Once even a car stopped and made fun of me by making loud, rude and ironic noises. Or they pass by on their bycicles and laugh in a condescending way.
I act as if I did not care. But in reality I ask myself why I have to put up with this horrid existence. It is a curse to be born like this, to having to live like this.

(This also made me immune, even as an atheist, for any of the silly utopias so many atheists believe in. I thought to myself that not only is existence itself futile, boring, repetitive — if you cannot even change your genetics you happened to be born with, then what good are any of the utopias anyway? The only utopia would be one where everyone is free to decide to kill themselves humanely and peacefully at any age they wish. As a Christian I am against suicide now, of course.)

To sum up, if you are an ugly hunchback who is also mentally ill and of only average mental capacity, in other words: a real loser — committing suicide would be, without a doubt, the best decision in such a case. As a Christian, I am called to endure to the end, though.
The second best decision, then, is to live as if already dead — to live like a dead person —, to simply endure this cruel existence to the bitter end. Because at some point it will end. And for that, I am grateful.

See also eugenics and “female eugenics”.

Quoting Gómez Dávila:

Individuals, in modern society, are each day more similar to one another and each day more estranged from one another.
Identical monads clashing with each other with ferocious individualism.

Each day it becomes easier to know what we ought to despise: what modern man admires and journalism praises.

Individualism proclaims differences but promotes similarities.

The modern machine becomes more complex every day, and every day modern man becomes more elemental.

Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.

No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.

Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.

Although it grieves the angelism of the democrat: one cannot build a civilisation with miserable biological material.

The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

Geneva, the Geneva that Calvin reigns from his sickbed, the Geneva whose shadow extends from the pulpit of Knox to the hallways of the Vatican, the Geneva where a world was formed, had about 12.000 inhabitants in 1560.
The huge modern human masses are not only a problem, but superfluous.

[back]

(((“Game”)))

Written: 2019-07-15
Updated: 2019-08-10
Updated: 2019-10-25
Updated: 2019-10-28

This is easy. If you are a Quasimodo, no amount of “game” will hide that. If a woman looks at you as if she just stepped in dog excrements, you know that these guys who tell you that what matters is only your “game” are truly living in a fantasy world. Similar to those who believe that genes do not influence intelligence.

Further, someone with a quiet personality will hardly be able to turn into the opposite and vice versa.

I don’t support his Mickey Mouse atheism, or his generally superficial views; not a very bright guy for sure, but the following quote is fitting. He is a good example for why a degree in philosophy is laughable. Compare his life to that of a great thinker, especially Nietzsche, whom he cites himself. The contrast couldn’t be starker.

Recognize a pattern here? Another guy who was sex-obsessed — another shallow mind.

His situation was awful, but his opinions are worse, and the life he led before his accident was vulgar and decadent. Also a good example of how unimportant we are. He will be forgotten. He is not a Nietzsche—and would have never become one—, whose life has been studied intensely. Which is bearable, if one trusts in Christ. (But regarding God and meaning, I have written enough elsewhere on these pages.)

Gómez Dávila provides us with five fitting aphorisms:

The greater the importance of an intellectual activity, the more ridiculous the pretension in enhancing the competence of one who carries it out.
A dentistry degree is respectable, but a philosophy degree is grotesque.

Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre.

A noble society does not wait for catastrophes to discipline it before it disciplines itself.

The book that “today's youth” adopts needs to do decades of penance to atone for the silly ideas it inspires.

The arguments with which we justify our conduct are often dumber than our actual conduct.
It is more tolerable to watch men live than to hear them spout their opinions.

On with the quote of this guy.
From the book Two Arms and a Head. The Death of a Newly Paraplegic Philosopher by Clayton Atreus, who, as he writes, had many women in his life:

[…] Something else I’ve noticed is that in many ways we become what others expect us to be. Marge Piercy perceived this when in her poem, “Barbie Doll” the healthy young girl with fat legs and a big nose was “advised to play coy” and “exhorted to come on hearty”. It’s an unforgettable poem. In short, society in part dictates what personalities are available to others based on much that has to do with the way they look. You may want to say that this is shallow or cowardly or whatever but you’re just not thinking. People just don’t respond the same to the ugly. Obese, dirty guys can’t get away with the same behavior towards women as strong, beautiful ones can. That’s just the way it is and will always be. […]

The truth, as always, hurts: genetics is destiny.

This stuff is also highly dysgenic and destructive to a civilization, so of course those who hate the West, Christianity and white Europeans are going to push this nonsense as hard as they can.

See also eugenics and “female eugenics”.

(2019-10-25/28):

Trying to play a character—being a psychopath, a shyster basically—is something pretty repulsive to me anyway. Why would anyone do this? It’s like “borrowing” expensive clothes and an expensive car to impress women when in reality you are just lying, playing a role, driving in cars you would never be able to buy. One would also attract women one might not and should not attract.

As Gómez Dávila, married with three children to a wife that has been said to have been a beauty, wrote:

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

Humanity is not cured of its diseases except by means of catastrophes that decimate it.
Man has never known how to renounce at the right time.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

[back]

(((Virgins = losers)))

Written: 2019-07-22

When I first noticed how this is getting repeated on and on like a broken record — similar to the “biological dead end” nonsense (see also eugenics and “female eugenics”) — it immediately reminded me of how equating virginity with being a loser shows how far removed we are from our Christian faith in the West. It also shows that our morality has sunk below even past pagan societies.

Says Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

After experiencing what an age practically without religion consists of, Christianity is learning to write the history of paganism with respect and sympathy.

[back]

Christianity and procreation

Written: 2019-07-22
Updated: 2019-09-16

Some claim that the absence of religion in the West is what is causing low birth rates. Unlike Islam or Judaism, Christianity actually does not teach that one has to marry. There are many verses in the New Testament — not just in the Epistles, but in the Gospels too — that actually praise celibacy.

However, the religion of the West has always been what the Church taught. While the Catholic Church placed celibacy above marriage, it also made marriage into a sacrament. It is known, though, that many of the early Christians were a lot more ascetic in their Christian lives than when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Yet, from the Council of Trent:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

The Orthodox Church does not even see procreation as the highest purpose of marriage.

To quote from Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Orthodox Church: Economia and Pastoral Guidance

3. THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Here it becomes evident that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church differ in their understanding of the purpose of marriage. In orthodox theological thinking this is firstly the reciprocal love, the relationship and the help between the marriage partners with view to their completion in Christ. Only subsequently comes the restraining of their sexual passion[7] and the reproduction[8] of the human race. It is remarkable that in the New Testament we find no reference relating marriage to reproduction. In the Roman Catholic Church it is evident that the ultimate purpose of marriage is procreation or reproduction. To see reproduction as the principal purpose of marriage is a narrow perspective on the conjugal life of man and wife. What value does sexual intercourse have between man and wife in the case of sterility or after the menopause, or if the wife is medically unable to have any more children? It is certain that the married couple have precedence above the family, however praiseworthy the purpose of family is.[9] The story of the establishing of marriage is found in the second chapter of the book Genesis, which deals with the fact that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2, 24), without mention of reproduction. The Holy John Chrysostom refers to this: “There are two reasons for which marriage was established …to cause the man to be satisfied with one single wife and to give him children, but it is the first which is the most important… As for reproduction, marriage does not necessarily include this…the proof is to be found in the many marriages for which having children is not possible. This is why the primary reason for marriage is to regulate the sexual life, especially now that the human race has already populated the whole world".[10]

[…]

[7] The physical unity — of which the apostle Paul says that they are “temples of the Holy Spirit — is a great deal more than simple pleasure or a remedy for the sexual urge! See Ign. Peckstadt, in Het orthodox huwelijk in Een open venster op de Orthodoxe Kerk, (The orthodox marriage in An open window on the Orthodox Church), Averbode, 2005.

[8] Ch. Catzopoulos, The holy sacrament of marriage — mixed marriages, Athens, 1990, p.39 (in Greek). See also Ch. Vantsos, Marriage and her preparation from an orthodox pastoral point of view, Athens, 1977, pp.83-99 (in Greek).

[9] Ign. Peckstadt, Het orthodox huwelijk in Een open venster op de Orthodoxe Kerk, (The orthodox marriage in An open window on the Orthodox Church), Averbode, 2005.

[10] Speech on marriage. See P. Evdokimov, Le sacerdoce conjugal — essai de théologie orthodoxe du mariage, in Le mariage – églises en dialogue, (The conjugal priesthood – essay on the orthodox theology of marriage, in The marriage – churches and dialogue), Paris, 1966, p. 94.

Marriage is not sin, though it seems to suggest that Christianity itself is not responsible for higher birth rates. It also shows that it is highly dubious to claim that marriage is a duty, which is neither backed up by Holy Scripture and often not even by Church history or theology.

Apart from St. Jerome, St. Aquinas and St. Augustine place virginity above marriage — without condemning it, of course, since even Kierkegaard knew that the Bible does not teach marriage being a sin, though he knew it recommends celibacy. Augustine even goes so far as to praise the ebbing away of humanity if done out of love and a pure heart (in De bono coniugali and De bono viduitatis).

Japan has a low birth rate, too, and never was Christian. My guess is that the modern world is so awful that many people see no point or value in it.

To quote Don Colacho:

Leftists and rightists merely argue about who is to have possession of industrial society.
The reactionary longs for its death.

A decent man is one who makes demands upon himself that the circumstances do not make upon him.

The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.

The modern world demands that we approve what it should not even dare ask us to tolerate.

Adapting to the modern world demands the hardening of one’s sensibility and the debasing of one’s character.

The modern world is condemned precisely by all that with which modern man seeks to justify it.

The sight of the modern world is so repugnant that ethical imperatives are becoming certainties in the indicative for us.

The two most insufferable types of rhetoric are religious rhetoric and the rhetoric of art criticism.

The enemies of the modern world, in the 19th century, could trust in the future.
In this century there only remains bare nostalgia for the past.

[back]

MGTOW

Written: 2019-07-22

I do not care at all about all this woman stuff. Though what I criticize is the rather silly notion of self-improvement. Not only is this not possible if one lacks the talents or intelligence for it — see eugenics and “female eugenics” —, but given that most of them are atheists, I fail to see why they, and many other atheists, seem to suggest that existence itself is self-explanatory. Meaning that you really need no higher purpose to live — Christ — but instead believing that one’s life will end in death and nothingness with the species going extinct at some point is totally worth it.

Nietzsche was more honest. In 1882, he wrote:

“I do not want life again. How did I endure it? Creating. What makes me stand the sight of it? The vision of the overman who affirms life. I have tried to affirm it myself. Alas!”

I also noted that many of them are crass materialists, occupied the whole time with working, getting money and degrees to increase their supposed “value”. Unfortunately, this is true for many Christians on the right as well.

I side with Gómez Dávila:

Our soul has a future.
Humanity has none.

Every man lives his life like a pent-up animal.

Let us not expect the rebirth of civilization as long as man has not again learnt to feel humiliated when he devotes himself to economic tasks.

I would not live for even a fraction of second if I stopped feeling the protection of God’s existence.

If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar utilitarianism.
The rest is rhetoric.

We should not conclude that everything is permitted, if God does not exist, but that nothing matters.
Permission ends up being laughable when what is permitted loses its meaning.

Whoever merely resigns himself to his lot feels frustrated by a destiny without meaning.
Whoever humbly accepts it knows that he just does not understand the significance of the divine decision concerning him.

One has to believe in God in order to ascribe meaning to things.

The soul surpasses the world, whereas the world encompasses humanity.
The insignificance of humanity renders “philosophies of history” ridiculous, whereas the infinite price of each human soul vindicates religion.

[back]

Survival as metric of success

Written: 2019-07-26

A really stupid viewpoint. Hardly to be taken seriously. Some even acknowledge — one often reads that stuff on cesspools like YouTube — that extinction is our fate, but shrug it off, instead “we” have to “win” by getting our species to 21 (twenty-one) billion in the next centuries. I am not joking. Someone wrote this. Apparently, some people think this way. They want to imply that existence itself is self-explanatory and so great that simply existing is sufficient in terms of meaning.

Which is a lie. Philosophy itself and religion are a testimony against this rather modern view. Vox Day once summed it up: one reason for the lack of faith in the West today is the unsurpassed wealth we had and still have to an extent. Apparently, many people are fine with hedonism — or rather they pretend that they are. After all, many do wonder and ask metaphysical questions.

What if one is born sick, mentally ill, disabled? On the bottom rung of the status ladder? I would not even ascribe to shallow views like being itself is meaning enough if healthy and well-off.

Not only the Buddha: Holy Scripture itself — Ecclesiastes, for example — is opposing this view.

See also Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Representation: Volume II Chapter XVII. On Man’s Need of Metaphysics:

The lower a man stands in an intellectual regard, the less of a problem is existence itself for him; everything, how it is and that it is, appears to him rather a matter of course.

Great thinkers like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche were seekers who grappled with reality. They also knew what they rejected. And Schopenhauer was a lot less condemning of Christianity than Nietzsche.

As Don Colacho wrote:

Despite his fury with Christianity, Nietzsche’s genealogy is uncertain. Nietzsche is a Saulus who passed out on his way to Damascus.

And so there is a reason that atheist materialist philosophies are getting so much coverage. After all, if celebrities or even famous scientists — Stephen Hawking, for example — instead said that of course they are believing Christians and go to Church, drastic changes of our society would ensue.

Without God, no basis for either morality or meaning exists. (See also MGTOW.)

Says Gómez Dávila:

Man is important only if it is true that a God has died for him.

[back]

“Committing genocide against one’s own family line.”

Written: 2019-07-26
Updated: 2019-07-29

A commenter on Vox Day’s blog named Scott wrote that those who decide not to have children are committing genocide against their own familiy line and that they are responsible for an incalculable number of lives being preempted because they did not want to be bothered. He did repeat these remarks in at least another blog post (both on MGTOW).

Now leaving aside that many people in the past, men especially, did not reproduce. That we know families existed — for example, Robert Walser’s parents — who had five, seven or even nine children of whom not even one reproduced. That at the end of the 17th century, 23% of men and women between ages 40-44 remained unmarried. That monks, nuns, priests and many great Christians had no children — Jerome, Aquinas, Pascal. I actually wonder …

… what is the point of such extreme over-the-top rhetoric? Someone like me who hates his own life, who wishes for death — do you really believe this rhetoric has any bearing on me? And genocide? You cannot kill someone who does not exist. Therefore, I do not affect anyone, because they do not even exist.

These incalculable numbers are not certain at all. A family can die out despite having seven children. Further, for the Christian, the following is true:

Christianity is the religion of one who lives as if an earthquake were possible at any moment.

Why do we need generations of Kallikaks or Jukes? Who needs generations of drunkards, prostitutes, criminals, alcoholics? Who benefits from such vulgarity and decadence? Certainly not the nation.

An “incalculable number of lives being preempted”. Well — I sure hope so! Because then they do not have to go through a horrible existence full of suffering, of being an ugly, hunchbacked and mentally ill loser — genetic traits you have to live with your whole life.

My father is a hunchback and his father was a hunchback — this stuff gets inherited. There are also shortcomings that are too intimate to write about here. Why should I roll dice with another being’s welfare?

Jordan Peterson (from this video) is another case for how strong the influence of genetics is (and why we need eugenics):

I’ve had depression since I was 13, probably, and very severe, and I’ve treated it a variety of ways, some of them quite successfully. But it’s been a constant battle, and my father had it, and his father had it, it’s just rife in my family.

Vox Day, too, said that people with mental illnesses — of which I suffer too, thanks! — should be cautious when thinking about starting a family.

Instead, I say good riddance! to my worthless genes. I am glad I am the last one of the descendants of my useless father, who was the only child of his mother.

Commenters like Scott know nothing about all the reasons someone might not have children. I am not arguing for extinction, let alone for the extinction of white Europeans. But let’s have some standards, please. Chris Langan supports eugenics. So should you.

Says Kierkegaard (from The Moment):

IN AGONIES such as a human being has rarely experienced, in mental strain that in a week would probably drive another out of his mind, I am, it is true, also a power, undeniably a seductive consciousness for a poor human being if the agony and strain were not dominant to the degree that often my wish is for death, my longing for the grave, and my desire that my wish and my longing might soon be fulfilled. Yes, O God, if you were not the Ominpotent One, who omninpotently could compel, and if you were not love, who irresistibly can move—on no other condition, at no other price, could it at any second occur to me to choose the life that is mine, embittered in turn by what is unavoidable for me, the impression I am obliged to have of people, and not least of their misunderstanding admiration. […]

That’s it for now.
See also eugenics and “female eugenics”.

[back]

“Schoupenhauer”

Written: 2019-08-09

Do I even need to comment? Someone who is too dumb to correctly spell the name of a thinker he supposedly even likes has no business sharing any of his imbecilic views anywhere.

(Is it a coincidence that the guy is another sex-obsessed loony? Reads [?] Schopenhauer and does not understand the reality and nature of pleasure and pain?)

Don Colacho thinks likewise:

It is fine to demand that the imbecile respect arts, letters, philosophy, the sciences, but let him respect them in silence.

The majority of men have no right to give their opinion, but only to listen.

We should ask the majority of people not to be sincere, but mute.

Very few carry themselves with the discretion befitting their insignificance.

[back]

No sex in Garden Eden

Written: 2019-08-19
Updated: 2019-10-04
Updated: 2019-10-18
Updated: 2019-10-25

It is hard to imagine that the sex drive as we know it existed in Garden Eden. Even though God says to His creation be fruitful and multiply before the fall, the way Adam and Eve would have multiplied in Garden Eden is unknown.

Seraphim Rose, in his book on Genesis, defends a similar view. He writes that after the fall, it is written that the woman will have pain during childbirth. From this, Rose concludes that there even might have been a physical change taking place after the fall. We also read that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed before the fall.

In the commented Catholic Vulgate-German edition of the Bible by Joseph Franz von Allioli, later updated by Augustin Arndt, one footnote in response to Lev. 15:18 explains that since the fall, the natural use of sexual reproduction has a sort of uncleanness about it, and further adds that this has been the view of other major ancient people like the Indians, Arabs, Greeks and Romans as well. Even though conjugal intercourse is not likened to sin anywhere in the Bible, it is mentioned as the first deed of fallen man leaving paradise (Gen. 4:1).

In the New Testament, Christ says that in the resurrection, they will neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matth. 22:30). Christ also never says be fruitful and multiply. There are more verses that suggest celibacy. See also Ruminations of a Low-Status Male, Volume 2: Celibacy and Hypergamy as well as the Orthodox Church's view on marriage above.

My own view aligns with the above. The reason for the existence of sexuality and lust is most likely that otherwise, no one would bring children into this world. A similar thought occurred to Schopenhauer.

(2019-10-04):

Maybe in Garden Eden, one would have “procreated” by pure reason alone, since existence might have seemed to be simply preferable to non-existence. After all, Schopenhauer famously asked, in his Parerga and Paralipomena, (paraphrased) “who would be so cold as to bring someone into this world if it were done by an act of pure reason alone?” It seems at least plausible for me to think that in Garden Eden, this wouldn’t even have been a question.

(2019-10-18):

Even Aquinas — I’m far from being a Thomist — famously wrote malum ut in pluribus.

(2019-10-25):

See also Wisdom of Solomon 7:1-2.

[back]

“God gave you your body, IQ, whatever”

Written: 2019-09-11
Updated: 2019-09-19
Updated: 2019-10-04
Updated: 2019-10-16
Updated: 2019-10-28

You often read about the talents and gifts God gave someone. This often gets mentioned when someone supposedley “wasted” his “God-given” talents (the fact that a women on Vox Day’s blog uttered the same view should give one pause.)

But did God give me my hunchback? My ugliness? Mental illness? Why does God heal the sick? If Christ—God—healed the sick, why would He create them in the first place? And especially now, where Christ is not with us to heal us—at least in a purely physical sense of healing blindness itself, for example. Science can’t fix deleterious genes. The best we have is eugenics, and that’s unlikely to happen, unfortunately.

(If someone would be tempted to quote the famous verse of Romans 9 regarding the potter and the clay, I’d first like to know how he would feel if he’d be in certain peoples positions. After all, I am enduring my existence thanks to my faith, though I simply reject the cockiness of some regarding genetic illnesses, especially those who don’t or hardly have any. Besides, I think that this verse has more to do with Israel.)

Genetic defects are the result of having to live in a fallen world — worse, a world where almost no one is trying to fix this, and where those who do try are insulted as “Nazis”, “racists” and whatnot. Yeah, right. Man prides himself on all kinds of achievements, especially those of a technological nature, but he is unable to get something as basic as health right.

We cannot even produce healthy offspring and then they praise man with this nonsense? The fact that a piece of trash like me exists should fill us with shame.

So where did this nonsense come from? For example, if I had children, the likelihood that they would be the same ugly hunchbacked losers like myself is very high, especially if they turn out male. My father is a hunchback, and his father was one. I am one myself. This is not hard to figure out. If God has any bearing on our genes, then He is very limited in His ability. Two Swedes won’t have a black or Chinese child. Why? Because the genes determine who you will become. The genes of your parents. This is not hard to understand.

Which is why I remain sceptical of this interpretation. Some people have a really awful and horrible life due to their genes. As I already said: were I not a Christian, I would kill myself instantly. “Waiting to die”—you are an imbecile, Doktor Jeep! I have been living with this mindset since I’m 16. I hated life and existence from an early age. Job curses his birth but is seen as a pious man. Same with Jeremiah. I cited the verses above.

So many people, even those who call themselves Christians, like showing off, like denigrating “losers” (see the whole hierarchy stuff). But no matter if it’s nature or God who gave you your genetics, you have no control over it either way.

Since we have free will, God is not actively “creating” human beings but people, with better or worse genes, choose to have them—or don’t, given how many are “accidents”.
I am therefore convinced that our bodies, including our looks and IQ et cetera, are the result of chance. God gives us the soul, which no man can create.

(2019-10-28):

To quote from Bruce Charlton: The Genius Famine:

The message seems to be that in pre-industrial Europe (before about 1800-1850) natural selection on humans operated mostly via mortality rates – especially child mortality rates. An average of more than half of children would die before adulthood, but this consisted of near total mortality rates among the children of the poor, and ill, and of low intelligence or ‘feckless’ personality; whereas among the skilled middle classes (clerks, merchants, lawyers, doctors etc.) the mortality rates were lower and fertility (number of births) was high.

Does this now mean that God wanted them dead? And nowadays, He does not anymore?

[back]

“A high IQ is so horrible to have!”

Written: 2019-09-11
Updated: 2019-09-28

Now this is getting silly. Given how often they—and they know exactly who I mean—praise their own intelligence, reference their IQ, claim to be simply smarter — and yet you read such nonsensical claims that IQ is not important.

Which is nonsense, given how some of the most common insults are refering to someone as idiot, imbecile, retard etc. I.e., someone of low intelligence. Who would want to have a dumb child? Would you want to be the idiot in class? The dumb guy who never gets anything? I am that guy, and it’s torture. (Besides being a mentally ill and ugly hunchbacked piece of crap, living at the bottom of society, scum and useless trash.)

Why did 23andme refrain from sending their customers their IQ score — no matter how immature the technology still is? Because intelligence (IQ) matters. And they know it. They often even—rightly—point to the declining intelligence levels of the West.

Would you trade IQ points for anything? Height? Which you lose to some extent in old age anyway, and is of little use. I cannot imagine what anyone would want to trade IQ for, given that intelligence is the one thing you will at least keep in old age, except if you are afflicted with suffering from Alzheimer’s and so on. It is what all the wise men, what great thinkers like Schopenhauer so often emphasized.

[back]

“Life is short”

Written: 2019-09-16

It isn’t. Or, as Goethe wrote (as cited by Spengler):

Life is short, but the day is long.

One point Kierkegaard made in his journals is that in opposition to stoicism, which contradicts itself by allowing suicide in case of mental anguish, Christianity forbids it. Meaning that someone could become a Christian and then still has thirty or even fifty years ahead of him — years in which he certainly will have great strain. For strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there that find it. (Matth. 7:13-14).

Further, if you were to be tortured for fifty years, day after day, year after year, decade after decade; say, in a concentration camp or a Gulag — you would not call this short. A Yazidi girl raped for six months by ISIL said even risking death by escaping was preferable to the abuse.

Which, again, debunks this widely held nonsensical view. A view that, unfortunately, even Schopenhauer often expressed.

Says Don Nicolás:

Stoicism is definitively the cradle of all modern errors. (Divinization of man — determinism — natural law — egalitarianism — cosmopolitanism etc.)

It is fine to demand that the imbecile respect arts, letters, philosophy, the sciences, but let him respect them in silence.

The majority of men have no right to give their opinion, but only to listen.

We should ask the majority of people not to be sincere, but mute.

Very few carry themselves with the discretion befitting their insignificance.

The modern world obliges us to refute foolish ideas, instead of silencing the fools.

Wisdom, in this century, consists above all in knowing how to put up with vulgarity without becoming upset.

[back]

“I am so smart it hurts”

Written: 2019-09-16

Claiming that one is so smart, that one’s IQ is so high that it is hard to relate to other people — and then you notice that those making such claims are usually just math, economics or even computer nerds who pride themselves on being able to edit the Windows registry, tampering with hexadecimal numbers.

Which requires intelligence, but it cannot be concluded that someone who has little interest in those subjects is dumb. A brilliant thinker or poet like Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, a Goethe — verbally extremely gifted for sure — would show little interest. IQ alone does not cut it. Imagine how foreign all those nerds would seem to a Goethe or Jacob Burckhardt: highly educated men.

Says Don Colacho:

A high “intelligence quotient” is indication of distinguished mediocrity.

[back]

“Every man wants ‘hot’ women”

Written: 2019-09-19
Updated: 2019-09-23
Updated: 2019-09-30
Updated: 2019-10-04

I have written about this before. It is not hard to see that the sex drive suspends reason, so that many are driven and act on their biological urges. Most likely, mankind would have gone extinct long ago if procreation were the result of one’s reason and not of lust.

However, to give the proud commenter on Vox Day’s blog (the registry guy) above credit for his honesty: while he used a derogatory term — he cannot stand “basic bitches” —, unlike most horny guys on there whose god is their genitalia, he admitted that most likely he would have ended up as another “ForeverAlone” if he had not met his smart wife with whom he is able to connect.

Exactly my thoughts as well. To quote Robin Williams:

I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It’s not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone.

This is why I reject Vox Day’s view on his teammate’s wife. He gave the following example for “compromises” one may have to make when marrying (which is a bit ridiculous, given that his friend was simply horny).
His friend once lamented that he could not have a deep and meaningful conversation with his wife because he apparently is a lot smarter than she is. The wife in question was a cheerful Dutch women who looked better than almost any woman Vox Day had seen, including models from Victoria’s Secret. This just shows the horniness though, and the Bible itself advises against it: Proverbs 31:10-31.

After all, they will grow old, and then such a marriage solely based on looks will most likely fail. Proverbs 31:30.

Someone can find a woman (or a man for that matter) physically attractive but understand almost instantly that their character and temperament is not compatible with one’s own. This is also one of numerous arguments against most race and ethnic mixing, besides simply destroying existing nations and peoples.

For a Christian, there isn’t much of a problem anyway. As C. S. Lewis wrote in “Mere Christianity” (I’m paraphrasing): “the Christian either marries and stays married until death, or lives a completely chaste life.” Vox Day is honest enough to admit that if someone used the “game” nonsense to live a sexually decadent life of debauchery, then that’s evil.

Another observation I made is that in the Old Testament, the Israelites are often compared to a whore for whoring with other nations and their gods.

The brilliant Otto Weininger is most likely correct in that no man most likely exists who does not feel flattered if he notices that women like him and find him attractive. But his whole point was to rise above our animal nature. Not unlike what the Bible and many wise men of the past taught.

The rating system of 1—10 is stupid beyond measure, for why should I even want to be found attractive by a beautiful but inwardly crazy, even wicked women? Some women even send love letters to convicted mass murderers.

If you want children of good moral character, intelligence and so on, there is certainly more to look for than just looks. The Jukes and Kallikak families should’ve taught us.

I side, again, with the great Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

Eroticism, sensuality, and love, when they do not converge in the same person, are nothing more, in isolation, than a disease, a vice, and foolishness.

Let us respect the two poles of man: concrete individual, human spirit.
But not the middle zone of an animal with opinions.

The sight of the modern world is so repugnant that ethical imperatives are becoming certainties in the indicative for us.

The growing number of people who consider the modern world “unacceptable” would comfort us, if we did not know that they are captives of the same convictions that made the modern world unacceptable.

Adapting to the modern world demands the hardening of one’s sensibility and the debasing of one’s character.

The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.

The modern world obliges us to refute foolish ideas, instead of silencing the fools.

The modern world demands that we approve what it should not even dare ask us to tolerate.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

Despite what is taught today, easy sex does not solve every problem.

By merely looking at the face of the modern man one infers the mistake in attributing ethical importance to his sexual behavior.

Modern man’s life oscillates between two poles: business and sex.

Sensuality is a cultural legacy of the ancient world.
Societies where the Greco-Roman legacy is being wiped out, or where it does not exist, only know sentimentalism and sexuality.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

This century has succeeded in turning sex into a trivial activity and an odious topic.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

Sex and violence do not replace transcendence after it has been banished.
Not even the devil remains for the man who loses God.

The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

Love uses the vocabulary of sex to write a text unintelligible to sex alone.

[back]

So many people, why not commit suicide?

Written: 2019-09-24

Walking through a larger city, seeing those masses of people (I actually don’t do that) — one might ask oneself: why not commit suicide? Now for an atheist, this question is actually meaningless, because nothing really holds you back. For a Christian, one always needs to remember that God cares about every single individual, everyone will have to face a horrible Judgment Day. That’s how important every single human being is to God. It’s an awesome, i.e. terrifying but also uplifting faith. It’s what I now have to believe. By killing onself, one will not escape God.

So this has to be endured now. I also think I understand the saying “Suicide is for cowards/the coward’s way out.” for the first time, now that I am a Christian: life is so horrible, simply exiting it on your own terms would be too easy.

Macbeth:

Life … is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

However (King Lear):

Men must endure Their going hence, even as their coming hither. Ripeness is all.

Closing with Gómez Dávila:

The irreplaceability of the individual is the teaching of Christianity and the postulate of historiography.

Even for Buddhist compassion, the individual is only a shadow that vanishes.
The dignity of the individual is a Christian cast made out of Greek clay.

Because we know that God cares about the individual, let us not forget that He seems to care little about humanity.

Our last hope lies in the injustice of God.

Modern drudgery does not make it more difficult to believe in God, but it does make it impossible to feel Him.

Our soul has a future.
Humanity has none.

Reading is an unsurpassable drug, because more than just the mediocrity of our lives, it allows us to escape the mediocrity of our souls.

[back]

Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Hierarchy

Written: 2019-10-04

It wouldn’t surprise me if the hierarchy police labeled Kierkegaard a gamma and Aquinas something else. After all, even Nietzsche was labeled a gamma by Vox Day (in one of his Darkstreams.) A great disappointment.

However, Aquinas, also nicknamed the dumb ox, was known to be very heavily overweight—even Umberto Eco mentions this in one of his essays—as well as being a shy, social autist. He also never talked to women again after his brothers sent a prostitute into his cell whom he chased from the castle by wielding a burning stick towards her.

Kierkegaard, on the other hand, had no trouble talking to women. After all, he asked Regine Olsen to marry him. Due to his religious convictions, he later broke off the engagement. Kierkegaard was also known to be very thin (and hunchbacked), which The Corsair used to make fun of to ridicule him publicly. He had no trouble in general, as he often declared in his journals, to hide his melancholy condition from the public: he was able to talk to anyone, no matter which sex or class the person belonged to.

There are many other examples where the hierarchy shows to be absolutely non-applicable to great men in general, and many other lesser men too.

Gómez Dávila:

Prophets, philosophers, politicians, all fail in the end.
But there is nothing more absurd than to write their history as a chain of defeats.
Every great man is a victory.

In order to exploit man in peace, it is most convenient to reduce him first to sociological abstractions.

Systematic reductions to single terms (pleasure and pain, self-interest, economics, sex, etc.) fabricate likenesses of intelligibility that seduce the ignorant.

[back]

Outbreeding/Inbreeding

Written: 2019-10-04

The influence of the Church most likely loosened the clan structure and warfare among the Germanic people. However, that cousin marriage leads to lower intelligence is, so far, a claim not backed up by any credible evidence.

Apart from individual cases—Kierkegaard, Darwin, Einstein, etc.—the following comments by Dr. Michael A. Woodley are of interest:
Are We Getting Dumber? Dr Michael A. Woodley and Stefan Molyneux [YouTube.com].

[back]

“Unmarried men want civilization dead”

Written: 2019-10-15
Updates: 2019-10-18

For the umpteenth time: no, no and no again. In my late teens and early twenties, the only thing I was interested in was truth and becoming a genius. My hero was mostly Schopenhauer, whom I wanted to emulate — the “Privatgelehrtenexistenz” appealed greatly to me, and it still does, though I have come to appreciate Gómez Dávila more in recent years, especially now that I am a Christian. (“Truth” as in the meaning of this mostly awful existence I found myself forced into; or “geworfen”, as Heidegger phrases it.)

I had absolutely no interest in women, and even found the idea of relationships or marrying to be obscene and ridiculous. Andy Nowicki, who married, seems to be the only contemporary so far who had a similar outlook when young. I also saw sex as degrading, similar to how Schopenhauer describes it — as a Christian I hold to this view even more strongly now.

Further, there are families today who support all the destructive policies that will bring an end to the Western world, who are in favor of pornography, sexual promiscuity, immigration, same-sex “marriage”, gender studies and what other kind of vulgarities people lust after these days. Whereas I—someone who is complete trash, an ugly hunchback, part of the dregs of society and so on—don’t.

And it’s game over from an early age anyway once you understand that you are different from most people, that you are mentally ill and will suffer to the end. Except if you kill yourself — a choice I no longer have as a Christian, having to suffer through this life like the Catholic Reinhold Schneider. (Pascal and Kierkegaard, maybe even Jerome come to mind as well.)

I am certain that modern Christians would burn someone like St. Augustine at the stake for his remarks in De bono coniugali and De bono viduitatis, even though Aquinas — for whom Augustine was an authority — similarly places celibacy above marriage (see also Christianity and procreation above.) The german edition of St. Jerome’s letters even includes rather harsh (and inane) comments of the editor(s) about Jerome’s views on marriage.

To get to the point of the subject: no, apart from holy men like Augustine, Jerome or Aquinas themselves, there were dozens of unmarried men in the West who did not destroy it—except if one stretches the definition of what “destroy” means. (Like saying that of course a Tesla or Newton should have had children — but why, given that we know that geniuses usually don’t beget geniuses? Eduard Einstein was mentally ill.) Case in point, Jacob Burckhardt never married and was a great learned man, a kind of genius for sure.

(As I wrote above: 23% of men and women between ages 40-44 remained unmarried at the end of the 17th century.)

Just stop it. I respond here to a comment by a certain “Rolf” on Vox Day’s blog (Rolf Nelson?). It is not true, and “tz” errs as well by writing that marrying your cousins will destroy your DNA. It is nonsense, as the post above shows. Japan is inbred, and capable, but nepotistic: a boon in today’s world.

As I have written elsewhere on these pages: I’m an ugly hunchback, mentally ill, a loser who started to feel different from most people in his youth. The chaos, though, already began in grammar school, first grade: I did not want to attend it, and later dropped out during 9th grade. I find life to be a pretty awful experience and decided early on that I had to kill myself and never even thought about passing on this crap that was forced onto me. Genetics is destiny, you reckless imbeciles.

My physical illnesses are already bad enough, but mental illness tops them easily. It is truly one of the worst sicknesses you can pass on to a child.

To be fair, though, I have to take my hat off to dc.sunsets for rightly calling out the Heartistian vulgarity that is praised so much on the right — the very vulgarity that currently destroys our civilization. But only for this, his praising of his sons and so on is besides the point, for if you are an ugly hunchback, you will never be “attractive” to women and whatever nonsense you guys constantly have on your mind. If people weren’t lured into sex, if it weren’t such a ridiculously strong drive—Schopenhauer emphasizes this very often, especially in his “Metaphysics of Sexual Love”—then humanity would have died out long ago.

The main theme of these pages actually is eugenics, for life is awful enough — don’t then force people like me with awful genetics into existence.

Kevin MacDonald’s article Monogamy and the Uniqueness of European Civilization links to another article by Jonah Goldberg, titled The Wisdom of Dan Quayle, wherein Dayle is quoted as saying:

[…] Quayle mentioned “Murphy Brown” once. “Bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong. Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong, and we must be unequivocal about this. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice. I know it is not fashionable to talk about moral values, but … it's time to make the discussion public.”

(See also the article by Harold Blake Walker [mentioned above]: Right to life is great, but not for the unwanted.)

Says Schopenhauer in his “Nachlass”:

Das fortwährende Daseyn des Menschengeschlechts ist bloß ein Beweis der Geilheit desselben.

(Loosely translated: “The continued existence of mankind merely is proof for its horniness.”

MPAI (“Most People Are Idiots”)? Maybe. But even more so MPAU, MPAS and MPAV: Most People Are Uneducated, Most People Are Shallow and Most People Are Vulgar, respectively — often obscenely so, unfortunately.

Says Gómez Dávila

The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.

Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.

In a perfect penal code, vulgarity would be punished with the death penalty.

Wisdom, in this century, consists above all in knowing how to put up with vulgarity without becoming upset.

Of the book of the world, we know nothing but pages written in a language we do not understand.

Only he lives his life who observes it, thinks it, and says it; the rest let life live them.

[back]

Arbeit macht frei

Written: 2019-10-16

Noticed this when reading about women regretting motherhood. They regret that they, apparently despite their “best efforts,” got pushed into the “traditional” role. Lamenting that they were unable to continue to work, just like their husbands. Further, they regret no longer to have “fun,” loss of sex drive, getting uglier, no longer being able to travel etc.

Now is this shallow? It surely is. For work itself is something most people do only grudgingly, even doctors, engineers and so on. And why wouldn’t they, given that Genesis 3:17-19 is true? Quite obviously, this is nonsense.

Getting uglier, loss of sex drive, no longer being able to travel? Come on, now! What is this world, an amusement park? How shallow and vulgar can you be? I have been ugly for as long as I can remember. Sex itself is shallow and base, especially if done for “recreation.” Travel? Only imbeciles travel the world. People averse to learning, because you cannot learn, of course, when you are busy walking or moving around the globe.

In other words, Schopenhauer is correct when he writes (I am paraphrasing here) that the dumbest people are usually believed to also be the happiest — a happiness we, of course, don’t envy them for.

In one of the rare biographical sketches, I read that Nicolás Gómez Dávila once said it was a godsend for him that his father — who apparently was born in 1865 — died at a ripe old age when his sons were old enough to take over his father’s business, because this allowed him to continue to read, think and write.

Gómez Dávila:

Even more boring than work is its eulogy.

Lee us not expect the rebirth of civilization as long as man has not again learnt to feel humiliated when he devotes himself to economic tasks.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

It is impossible to travel around and to be intelligent at the same time.
Intelligence is a matter of being able to sit still.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

Modern man’s life oscillates between two poles: business and sex.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

[back]

“Sex is natural, sex is good”

Written: 2019-10-16

Quote by Vox Day (from his blog). And utterly wrong, at least the latter part. I wrote about this earlier, but given how much violence, strife, ugliness and death sexual relations have produced and still produce, calling it “good” really begs the question. And “sex” means the “whole package,” not just the act itself — which, again, is certainly not neutral, cannot be performed in front of children; while we don’t defecate in front of them either, it wouldn’t be as shocking and psychologically damaging, at worst they would chuckle or blush.

And here we go again with the obligatory escolios by our favorite thinker: Gómez Dávila:

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

Despite what is taught today, easy sex does not solve every problem.

By merely looking at the face of the modern man one infers the mistake in attributing ethical importance to his sexual behavior.

Modern man’s life oscillates between two poles: business and sex.

Sensuality is a cultural legacy of the ancient world.
Societies where the Greco-Roman legacy is being wiped out, or where it does not exist, only know sentimentalism and sexuality.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

This century has succeeded in turning sex into a trivial activity and an odious topic.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

Sex and violence do not replace transcendence after it has been banished.
Not even the devil remains for the man who loses God.

The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

[back]

The “psychology” of the average Vox Day commenter

Written: 2019-10-16
Updated: 2019-10-28

Instead of going on about Vox Day all the time, I now decided to write about the “psychology” of his commenters. What one notices right away is that most of them are Protestants and hate Catholics. Not all. But many do. And even the Catholics there hate the monastery and the fact that the Church placed celibacy above matrimony (see Christianity and procreation). They basically neglect the New Testament, being focussed extremely one-sidedly on the Old Testament.

In of his dozen posts about marriage and children—where “Scott” went full imbecile—only one reader named “Clay” chimed in (a father himself as he wrote in a previos comment) and wrote:

Now, I believe in Jesus, like most here.

But...you always ruin one of the posts here by bringing religion into the commentary. At least, say, "OT".

Correct. But this was among a sea of the usual conformist chest-thumping of his minions (they call themselves minions).

In a recent post that inspired this response, regarding having children, Vox Day even wrote:

Don’t wait. You won’t regret it.

Now, this is a lie. Or at best an oversimplification. But even if not, what if they inherit mental illness? At least for them, life could become very harsh and a rather unwanted experience. More importanty, he said himself that “caution might be wise” in case of being genetically predisopsed to psychotic mental illnesses.

And the comments just prove my point! “ArthurTintagel” got beat up, even called “wicked” (!) for “loving” money — when in fact he said that one should first have resources, which is what our ancestors did. At least in Germany, as Andreas Vonderach writes, one had to be capable when wanting to marry, even going so far that usually, you had to show the father of the potential bride your “work contract” (or whatever was available at that time). This, Vonderach speculates, might explain the high mean IQ of Germans and their high technical ability. No father would have married his daughter to some wastrel.

“ArthurTintagel” is correct: criticizing them for their simplistic and dysgenic views does not mean at all that one is a feminist or a supporter of today’s decadent “hookup culture” or even in favor of abortion. And yet they are the ones always going on about “binary thinkers.” The irony …

Maybe apart from a few genuinely well-meaning people, the rest of the comments mostly consists of the typical boilerplate insults common to these people.
The worst are those that always try to bring in the Bible. No, having children certainly is not a commandment. Further, “have children prior to being 30.” Pretty arbitray, as usual. Luther was forty, Kierkegaard’s mother (first child at 29) was 45 when he was born, his father 57. “The Wall.” That’s ridiculous, given how horny mankind is.
They simply ignore anything, absolutely anything. From badmouthing eugenics — since they don’t have to live with a plethora of physical and mental disabilities, and being ugly will make you unattractive to most anyway — to downplaying poverty, to even thinking that anyone somehow can work some satisfying, well-paying job (I don’t have any “capabilities”) to have fun being the last of your line: I certainly will, as I have written above.

How about this: just increase your IQ from 105 to 145! A commenter even brought this up on another MGTOW post regarding how unrealistic their views on “improving” attractiveness and so on are.
This truly borders on debility.

Some wrote about the “gift” of life, or that they love their children more than life itself. Well, I don’t like “life” and never liked my existence. And while it’s possible to experience parts of heaven and hell on this earth already, existence in either heaven or hell will, of course, be completely different from our earthly one. A Christian does not have to like his life, we even ought to hate it.

Hint: most people in the past, especially men, did not reproduce, and dysgenics is real — otherwise Vox Day could not fearfully resort to his “I am not a eugenicist, I’m against dysgenics” nonsense. Think of the many monks and nuns! Aquinas, Jerome, Pascal and many more left no descendants. So what? Without their works but with children, they would already be forgotten. But they aren’t. They had sex drives too, as Christ Himself teaches in Matthew 19:11-12: monks are not physical eunuchs. The Church condemned Origenes’ tself-castration. Luther was a monk and later married, even though he did not want to (most likely out of protest against the Pope). Numerous examples exist. They most likely do not read a lot about the history of the saints, the Church and the Church fathers in general.

They lack introspection. While they often denigrate autists, they are pretty autistic themselves. They lack life experience, even though many are older than I am (see also the escolios at the end of this entry.)

They always try to justify it with God and the Bible — and fail every single time. Their bible-thumping is not just annoying but disgusting. I followed Vox Day’s blog for more than a year, read it daily, basically. At that time I was an atheist and mostly interested in criticism of globalism and immigration — even though suicide was on my mind daily due to heritable mental illness —, which Vox Day was pretty good at.
At some point, I started to come to accept Christianity and the idea of a “god” existing more and more, until one evening I delved into the problem of evil from a Christian standpoint — Vox Day often mentions it in relation to Atheism and Christianity — and was, as it is called, “born-again.”
However, at that point, I began to check his blog less often until I stopped reading it completely. It was around the same time that the whole hierarchy and “gamma” pseudo-science was forced down his readership’s throats, almost as if it was some kind of Gospel truth.

In his awful “Darkstream” Men going evil’s way, he even said that no matter if you are a Christian or an atheist believing in evolution, in both cases having children defines the meaning of existence. You can be an atheist and reject evolution, but even if you don’t, nay, especially if you don’t, there is absolutely no reason to have children. I was an atheist materialist who believed in evolution — simply thought it to be correct — myself. Which led me to conclude that suicide is the only rational option in this world. Evolution as taught by the orthodox science community is an absolutely braindead, retarded system: eat and be eaten; consume, reproduce, die. Great! … not.
(And regarding having children and Christianity, please see the entry above.)

If this is the kind of theology the West adopts in the future, it will certainly be doomed even more than we are now. For the backlash against this trite and shallow protestant theology will most likely result in Christianity being abolished and fought to death.

(2019-10-28):

I liked Vox Day when he wrote mostly on immigration and current politics, and enjoyed his calm and level-headed approach to it. He did not even shy away from seeing immigration and war as basically the same thing, or of understanding that race mixing, obviously, will lead to the eradication of a people. — The latter is one of the last holy cows of our times.
More importantly, he talked about Christ, Genesis, Satan and evil as others do about physics or biology: he took them for granted, as “facts” almost, and this got me interested in Christianity and ultimately led to my conversion experience. However, this was also the point where I started to frequent the blog less and less, and the whole hierarchy stuff was hard to take seriously and got annoying fast. While he still has, from time to time, interesting stuff to say — for example, about imbeciles like “Spengler” (David P. Goldman) —, the commenters really are an annoying bunch. (Granted, Vox Day has acknowledged himself that the quality started to drop as his blog gained in popularity.)

Some dynamite by Gómez Dávila, who “only” had two sons and one daughter:

Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.

No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.

The individual who lies to himself, just like the society that does not lie to itself, soon rots and dies.

Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.

Although it grieves the angelism of the democrat: one cannot build a civilisation with miserable biological material.

The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

One could object to science that it easily falls into the hands of imbeciles, if religion’s case were not just as serious.

The two most insufferable types of rhetoric are religious rhetoric and the rhetoric of art criticism.

The defeated reactionary always retains the option of entertaining himself with the victor’s simplistic ideas.

Whoever lives long years is present at the defeat of his cause.

Not all defeated men are decent, but all decent men end up being defeated.

Only the defeated come to possess sound ideas about the nature of things.

Only he lives his life who observes it, thinks it, and says it; the rest let life live them.

To interpret certain men, sociology is enough.
Psychology is overkill.

[back]

Mount Athos: no women (any female) allowed

Written: 2019-10-17

On Mount Athos, women and female animals (except cats) are banned. From the article:

“[…] This was the simplest way, he says, to ensure celibacy. The thing that makes Athos different from other monasteries, he says, is that the whole peninsula ‘is regarded as one huge monastery’.
[…] ‘The rule is and always has been that men should be capable of growing a beard if they were going to go to Athos, and there was a prohibition against eunuchs and boys in the Byzantine period,’ says Speake. The fear was that a woman could pretend to be a boy or a eunuch in order to sneak in. […]”

The only woman on Mount Athos, as one monk said, is our Holy Mother.

So why this unchristian embracement of “game” and this whole hierarchy/PUA stuff even among Christians?

[back]

Sam Harris

Written: 2019-10-24
Updated: 2019-10-25

Vox Day is correct: he is the laughing stock of the “New Atheists.” An absolute moron, even worse than Jordan Peterson. I could not believe what I was hearing in the debate with William Lane Craig: he either did not understand Craig’s argument, or he knew he could not refute it. Either way, he is dishonest and shallow. No matter what you might think of Lane Craig, Harris embarrassed himself. The fact he is pretty famous, the fact that many even praise his “debating skills” shows us once more in what a horrible world we are living in today.

(2019-10-25):

Harris also claimed that science shows us, for example, that we humans live lives that are more meaningful than the life of cockroaches. Now, not only does science absolutely not show this, but this demostrates that Harris does not even know what science is. One could actually make the opposite claim, as Craig did, and conclude that science does at best not say anything at all about the meaning of our lives, and at worst it shows how meaningless this universe is. Even a vulgar, decadent and uneducated scientist like Feynman was more honest.

Gómez Dávila:

Intellectual vulgarity depresses me more than bad news.

So that one does not live depressed among so many foolish opinions, it behooves one to remember at every moment that things obviously are what they are, no matter what the world’s opinion is.

The universe takes revenge on those who treat it as an inanimate mechanism by making them die not humiliated, but prosperous and brutish.

In the intelligent man faith is the only remedy for anguish.
The fool is cured by “reason,” “progress,” alcohol, work.

Whoever appeals to any science in order to justify his basic convictions inspires distrust of his honesty or his intelligence.

Why deceive ourselves? Science has not answered a single important question.

The sight of the modern world is so repugnant that ethical imperatives are becoming certainties in the indicative for us.

More so than the immorality of the contemporary world, it is its growing ugliness that moves one to dream of a cloister.

[back]

“Aliens so important! Would change everything! Rejoice!”

Written: 2019-10-25

They go on and on about how thrilling and exciting the discovery of extraterrestrial life forms would be. But it isn’t at all.

For I. if you believe in evolution, the likelihood of intelligent life existing somehwere in the universe is almost zero.
II., why even believe that if such life existed, it would be good? “Good” in the sense that it’s not just a planet that resembles, say, Indonesia, or the Middle East? Where you have torture and war and poverty and all kinds of injustices on a daily basis? In other words, given how awful our own world is—the Bible teaches it itself: Gal. 1:4, 1 John 5:19, Ps. 84:6—, why expect that other worlds would be any better?
Would scientists still rejoice upon finding such a planet? I don’t think so.

One Catholic astronomer said maybe we humans are the one sheep that needs saving, whereas the rest of the supposedly existing intelligent beings are still in contact with God. This cannot be believed, since science tells us that this universe is winding down. According to a footnote in one of George Huntemann’s works, only the Orthodox Church actually teaches that the whole cosmos is fallen; Catholics and Protestants have not been able to reach that conclusion.

It’s not hard to imagine that aliens would be as awful as we human beings are, and that we would simply slaughter each other. After all, the world once was a lot “smaller,” and we know that even if modern politically correct history is bunk, there certainly was quite a lot of killing going on when new people and tribes were discovered.
So why would it be any different with another intelligent species? This brings me to the third and most important point.

III., the most important point: it would not change a thing. Yes, it really would not change anything about children dying of leukemia at age seven, or of people being tortured, raped, abused and whatnot. It would not change my life at all. I would still lead this awful life. This is why Kierkegaard is correct: existence itself is too important to waste time on anything else. The last great thinker who tackled these questions in an honest manner was Heidegger.

Why do I write this? Vox Day mentioned in his Darkstream The Demolition of Darwin that the world is stranger than we think or so, and that Genesis would explain phenomena like UFOs etc. This is hardly relevant in a world where we have so many injustices and horrors that we would even waste brain cells on such ephemeral issues that are of no importance. After all, Kant already thought about extraterrestrials, but he did not waste much time on it, since his Kritiken were and are of a far more important nature.

Lastly, I firmly believe that no one who is currently suffering—no beggar in Thailand or Indonesia or anyone anywhere really—would waste even one second on the question if there are intelligent life forms somewhere.

(Apart from the fact that the belief aliens had visited us some time ago and were never discovered by anyone, or aliens even influenced our oh so important history is so deluded and ridiculous that not even a five-year old would believe this nonsense. What are they supposed to do, watch people eat? Copulate? Sit in parks, listening to music or whatever?
Man is so full of himself, it’s a wonder God has not already called it quits and simply destroyed this place — but this time for real.)

Some escolios that will bring you back down to earth by the greatest and deepest thinker of the 20th century, Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

The soul surpasses the world, whereas the world encompasses humanity.
The insignificance of humanity renders “philosophies of history” ridiculous, whereas the infinite price of each human soul vindicates religion.

Where is the world headed?
Toward the same transcience from which it comes.

The importance it attributes to man is the enigma of Christianity.

What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we matter to Him.

Our soul has a future.
Humanity has none.

[back]

“Fancy pants”

Written: 2019-10-28

So, should we no longer dress adequately, as most of our ancestors did? Also, why, then, the “advice” of all those “alphas” to dress better, when it’s not important anyway? The fact that it’s nowadays seen as “extravagant” to wear suits—perfectly normal during more civilized times— shows us how vulgar our world has become.

Says Gómez Dávila, who always dressed correctly:

One may grant man all kinds of freedoms except the freedom to dress himself and erect buildings.

During no era did man clothe himself as ugly as in our era where he is free to choose how to dress.
Man is only clothed by garbs or uniforms.

[back]

I am too arrogant and just an awful person

Written: 2019-11-04
Updated: 2019-11-05

I am not humble enough. The correct and Christian response to my awful life would be to humbly accept it and live it without murmuring, which God hates. I am not able, though, to accept this view if someone else told me to. Because most of the time, those who want you to humbly accept your lot in life are usually people who hardly have any of the problems that have plagued me almost from late childhood onwards. They have no idea.

Certainly, people with worse fates exist. What is awful about my life is the realization that really nothing can be done, that I am nothing but a mediocre useless creepy ugly loser, and in having to deal with a lot of arrogance from others. From people who often think they are sinless and the greatest gift to mankind or whatever. Who do not even understand in the slightest what mental illness actually does to a person. And the Church no longer exists. (Except maybe if I moved to the Holy Mountain in Greece. Hardly likely.)

I am beginning to believe that I have been cursed from birth.

I found the following very inspirational (especially the last monk/hermit shown): Hermits of our times [youtube.com]

(2019-11-05):

What is the point of this praise of life? Of this existence? The Bible itself teaches that this is neither our home, nor a great world to live in. Ecclesiastes alone is clear on this. And why create such life as myself? With mental illness? Isn’t life itself awful enough? Do we also need to pass on these useless and horrific illnesses such as those that I suffer from? This is why we need eugenics.
And were it not for the fact that I’m now a Christian, I would rather choose to kill myself, because I find this whole “experience” life is to be completely overrated. Add to this the mediocrity of our lives, for the modern world has nothing else in store for us: we have no other choice but to live mediocre lives. I could have killed myself at 16, but I waited seven years more (survived it, obviously).

Quoting Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

God does not ask for our “cooperation,” but for our humility.

In an egalitarian society neither the magnanimous nor the humble fit in; there is only room for pretentious virtues.

Only the defeated come to possess sound ideas about the nature of things.

Lucidity is the booty of the defeated.

Upon each person depends whether his soul, deprived of its many pretensions by the years, is revealed as bitter spite or as humble resignation.

Our last hope lies in the injustice of God.

Humanity fell into modern history like an animal into a trap.

Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre.

It fell to the modern era to have the privilege of corrupting the humble.

[back]

“It’s your own fault that x!”

Written: 2019-11-10

It’s your own fault that you don’t have a job/get laid/are this or that way or whatever. No, of course not. You don’t get to choose your genes, neither your upbringing and environment. And these influences shape your whole person.

I am starting to believe that most people on the net are not just idiots, but that they are very shallow and especially uneducated. These views would not be held by someone who is well-read in the classics, or the great thinkers and moralists of the Christian Occident.

I am disgusted not only by modernity, but especially its intellectual vulgarity and immorality. “Getting laid” would have gotten you hanged in the past — now they even celebrate it. Do I need to say more? Luckily, I am not alone in this, and have the greatest reactionary thinker on my side: Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

Modern man imagines that it is sufficient to open the windows in order to cure the soul’s infection, that it is not necessary to clear out the trash.

Intellectual vulgarity depresses me more than bad news.

The modern world demands that we approve what it should not even dare ask us to tolerate.

There are two kinds of men: those who believe in original sin and idiots.

To one who anxiously asks what is to be done today, let us honestly answer that today all that is possible is an impotent lucidity.

The key event of this century is the demographic explosion of idiotic ideas.

In the modern world the number of theories is increasing that are not worth the trouble to refute except with a shrug of the shoulders.

Wisdom, in this century, consists above all in knowing how to put up with vulgarity without becoming upset.

The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.

By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has been gradually losing his knowledge of man.

The modern world obliges us to refute foolish ideas, instead of silencing the fools.

Modern society is abolishing prostitution through promiscuity.

Whoever does not turn his back on the contemporary world dishonors himself.

[back]

“The Wall”

Written: 2019-11-10
Updated: 2019-11-18

The Wall is also one of the most stupid ideas the modern world has introduced. That your body, usually, is in better shape when young is a truism. That people automatically lose their attractiveness upon hitting a certain age is not. Especially since everyone ages differently.

More importantly, though: it shines a powerful torch on modern man’s mentality. After all, our ancestors were married. And while men might have been older, not all were. Enough documents exists to prove that. Should they have divorced their wives because they started to get older? They put up with their struggles, they were not, for the most part, hedonists.

I believe that the decay of the West is simply the result of the just wrath of God. We deserve this. We deserve it. As long as modern man does not hang or at least lock away the vulgar “PUAs”, the sinful clergy and all those who actively destroy the nations they hate but still live in with immigration and sexual debauchery, and all other decadent destroyers of civilization, we deserve all the destruction that the West is currently facing.

Still, HOW I LOVE THIS MY LIFE!! I thank God that He puts me through these torments. For tormented I certainly am by having to live in our ugly and immoral decadent modern world, not to speak of all the awful intellectual vulgarity one has to put up with. Whoever has good taste and manners will have to live a life full of squalor today.

(2019-11-18):

Apart from the fact of how horny man is anyway. My father was born when his was already in his fifties. Lust is the reason this world still exists. Schopenhauer is correct

Few had more contempt for the modern world than our beloved Colombian thinker, Gómez Dávila:

Modern man imagines that it is sufficient to open the windows in order to cure the soul’s infection, that it is not necessary to clear out the trash.

Let us lament less the obscenity of today’s novelist than his misfortune.
When man becomes insignificant, copulation and defecation become important actions.

Love may have its erotic spring, but its autumn has to be chaste.
— Few notions are more embarrassing than the copulation of a forty-year-old woman by a fifty-year-old man.

Whoever abandons himself to his instincts degrades his face as obviously as he degrades his soul.

Degradation is the current price of brotherhood.

Progress in the end comes down to stealing from man what ennobles him, in order to sell to him at a cheap price what degrades him.

Tolerance consists of a firm decision to allow them to insult everything we seek to love and respect, as long as they do not threaten our material comforts.
Modern, liberal, democratic, progressive man, as long as they do not step on his calluses, will let them degrade his soul.

Humanity longs to free itself from poverty, from toil, from war—from everything which few escape without degrading themselves.

Wisdom, in this century, consists above all in knowing how to put up with vulgarity without becoming upset.

The victims of the most serious individual and social catastrophes are often not even aware: individuals become brutish, societies become degraded, unawares.

Liberalism proclaims the right of the individual to degrade oneself, provided one’s degradation does not impede the degradation of one’s neighbor.

The threat of collective death is the only argument which shakes humanity’s complacency today.
Atomic death troubles it even more than its increasing degradation.

Only the unattainable deserves to be desired, only the attainable sought.
He who seeks the unattainable goes mad, he who desires the attainable is degraded.

Let us be careful not to call accepting what degrades us without any resistance “accepting life.”

Prayer, war, tillage are manly occupations.

It is impossible to travel around and to be intelligent at the same time.
Intelligence is a matter of being able to sit still.

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

An abrupt demographic expansion rejuvenates society and makes its stupidities recrudesce.

The key event of this century is the demographic explosion of idiotic ideas.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

[back]

“Getting lots of sex is praiseworthy!”

Written: 2019-11-11

Another imbecilic viewpoint: sex is natural and good and whatnot ’cause I say so. And those who do not agree are losers who are not getting any. But why not food as well? Because it’s easier to acquire? That’s the reason? What if someone bragged about driving a Lamborghini? Shallow? Yes. (And it is not as if you cannot buy and pay for it, either.)

Further, those denying that sex is not necessary for your own survival, that it is so important to have it are also quick to insult overweight or lazy people. But if laziness and the drive for eating are just as natural, why should it be seen in any other way? Someone slacking away, another one eating one fast food meal after the other — where is the difference? In all these cases, people act on their natural (sinful) desires. And the wise men of the past, all religions that have at least a grain of truth in it — not to speak of Christianity itself — understood this. Even Chesterton did.

Says Gómez Dávila:

It is above all against what the crowd proclaims to be “natural” that the noble soul rebels.

We should ask the majority of people not to be sincere, but mute.

The majority of men have no right to give their opinion, but only to listen.

Depravity always arouses the secret admiration of the imbecile.

Dialogue with the imbecile poses difficulties: we never know where we harm him, when we scandalize him, [or] how we please him.

Our denouncing the imbecile does not mean that we wish to get rid of him. We want diversity at any price.
But the charm of variety should not prevent us from judging correctly.

Where he is easy to refute, as in the natural sciences, the imbecile can be useful without being dangerous.
Where he is difficult to refute, as in the humanities, the imbecile is dangerous without being useful.

Let us be careful not to call accepting what degrades us without any resistance “accepting life.”

“Escapism” is the imbecile’s favorite accusation to make.

Thinking corrupts the imbecile.

The imbecile does not discover the radical misery of our condition except when he is sick, poor, or old.

The modern world demands that we approve what it should not even dare ask us to tolerate.


Last modified: 2019-11-19 21:18:26