Last modified

Intellectual vulgarity depresses me more than bad news. — 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

[back]

“Socio-sexual hierarchy”

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

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? Iff 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.

Says Gómez Dávila:

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

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.

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.

[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

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: Right to life is great, but not for the unwanted

Says Gómez Dávila:

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.

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

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. Iff 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.

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 civilzations 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

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 three 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.

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”.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 will.

I side with Gómez Dávila:

Our soul has a future.
Humanity has none.

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.

Apart from the fact that Vox Day himself said that people with mental illnesses — of which I suffer too, thanks! — should be cautious when 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 longin 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

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—among other verses—Christ says that in the resurrection, they will neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matth. 22:30).

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.


Last modified: 2019-08-25 07:00:12