Enjoy the Decline
Does the realization of the meaninglessness and absurdity of life necessarily require suicide?
~Millenial King, “Aurini and Nihilism: A Reaction“
Enjoy the Decline. I remember the first time I ran across that particular catchphrase; a somewhat-popular blog, with a black/orange aesthetic, run by a man whose call-sign was as witty as his prose. After reading for a some time, I started a blog-war argument with him – some minor point of contention, to explore the ground upon which we agreed. Dialogue followed, and not long after that, friendship: my good friend Aaron Clarey – the Captain of Capitalism.
It’s struck me of late, that when I use the eponymous phrase of this article, most people mistake it for an Aurini original – or, perhaps, a long-held motto of the Alt-Right. An excuse. A cynical justification for suicide by hedonism. “The economy is broken! Women are offering sex like cows with swollen udders! Failure is success! Success is failure! Sit poolside, and damn the future, for the future has damned us! Enjoy the Decline!” Cognitive dissonance is usually the result, particularly when I use it in a post utterly rejecting the cutting razor-blades of nihilism, and readers who understand my allusions to Shakespeare and Cato fail to spot the ironic beauty inherent to the phrase “Enjoy the Decline!”
This is my fault, not yours; I owe you the etymology of the phrase.
No – what I owe you is the story of when I learned that Camus was, on occasion, correct.
The Myth of Sisyphus – I’ll confess, the first time I read this piece of existential navel-gazing I thought it was nonsense. “What lessons could a man living in the real world possibly learn from a philosophical construct? Sisyphus, who eternally rolls a boulder up-and-down a hill? Balderdash!” In my defence, I was only twenty-one at the time.
For some reason, The Myth of Sisyphus entered my mind this morning; perhaps it was Millenial King’s post, which I linked above – though I’d only read the first part of his post at that point, the traumatic introduction to the angst which I also feel – perhaps it’s been the Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul I’ve been drunkenly stumbling through in recent weeks – whatever the cause of that errant thought, as I butted out my cigarette, it struck me – I know Sisyphus. I have met him, and have had the pleasure of his company.
I know that he is the incarnation of Sisyphus, because he:
- Climbs mountains upon every opportunity, with vigour and ambition, only lamenting the lack of company.
- Speaks the truth that would save thousands, if not millions from woe, if only they would listen – but they never do, and he knows that they never will.
- Is a joyous man, who laughs without reserve, and loves faithfully and loyally.
His name is Aaron Clarey; and “Enjoy the Decline” was a phrase he coined.
Camus obsesses over the philosophical suicide which Bad Atheists such as myself indulge in, but all writers must be put into a historical context. Camus was trying to process the horrors of World War I (a war waged by the machines, where humanity was nought but ammunition), and he hadn’t even begun to cope with the implications of Einstein’s Relativity or Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem – give the man some credit, he was trying to transcribe Lovecraft in a sane and sensible manner. I thought it was nonsense the first time around, too – but these are heady times we’re dealing with, my brothers.
“The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
― Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays
“Enjoy the Decline” is not a screed of pessimism – but of Hope. Hope in the satisfactory, hope in the self, hope in the overcoming – the pragmatism to recognize the limitations of the self, and the age in which one lives, seeking the eternal in all that we do upon this Earth.
Strap those theological virtues down tight, my brothers – Justice, Temperance, Prudence, and Courage – those are the realm of the Noble Barbarian, post those badges upon your forearm, wear them with pride! But Hope, Faith, and Charity? Wear those with humbleness. Upon the breast, hidden from view. Little room for Paladins in a Barbaric age. Wear them with the humbleness of Sisyphus…
Wear them with the humbleness of an Economist.
In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien: “Actually, I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’- though it contains some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
All men who live to see such times as ours wish that it had never come to pass, but we can’t decide when we are born. Our only option is to choose how we respond to the darkness to swallow everything we hold dear. Do we embrace it and throw our lot in with it in the hopes of status? Do we retreat into our enclaves and dwell in a pale shadow of the past as we hope to weather the storm? Do we fight the enemy as best we can, without confidence for victory? Do we make our gambit on a fool’s hope?
We fight because there are things that we wish to save from destruction- people, things, ideas, places. Even if we are victorious, the old world which allowed the foe we fight to fester for so long will pass away. A new age will dawn, one which we will hopefully live to see and which we rule. Mourn that which we will lose to time and war, and strive to replace it with something greater. That is the course I choose. And I do not think I am alone.
Edit: “… the darkness that threatens to swallow…”
It’s going to fucking crash.
What the next civilization looks like will depend on what kind of folks make it through. Clarey merely advises to face reality and deal with it.
Oh, and buy more silver, dammit.
The trouble is that as the west fails, something will replace it and that something is the Muslim. And that will be a dark age for everyone and one that could last for a long long long time.
Ralph, you might just have identified a battle that is worth fighting.
Ralph: it seems that we have a pattern in the West. Build up, collapse, beat up on Muslims, build up, et cetera.
*Build up, collapse, get beat up by Muslims.
I explored the epigraph to get it in context and discovered it comes from the wiki entry for The Myth of Sisyphus, the section for Chapter 1.
Indeed, the Muslim horde, but I don’t think they did the most damage, though all those fucking books, damn. My interpretation of history has been substantially altered lately by learning that Jews plied their trade of money lending during the Middle/Dark Ages with support from ‘the Church’. Accurate information adequate for definitive general conclusion is hard to come by (big surprise), at least without serious work not worth the cost. Let’s just say I don’t trust the Establishment to perform accurate historiography, and the ethic ‘predicament’ of the Rothschilds and friends in the Judengasse ghetto of Frankfurt makes perfect sense. The length of the Dark Ages and the timing of the Jewish expulsions before reboot of Western Civilization 2.0 suggests a more substantial situation. I think all Abrahamic religions deserve close scrutiny.
Thanks for the linkage on the previous post, Aurini. I hope my disagreement on the nuances is part of a fun dialog. Certainly, we agree on the diagnosis of the social disease and the prognosis. No blog wars here. I hope your file endeavors and coming along.
Correction: I hope your film endeavors are coming along. My editor is fired.
A lot of good points in your post, Doug, particularly the Abrahamic analysis you link to.
This lady (http://naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vilar,Esther/PolygamousSex2.html) argues that Christianity sold out when it turned Mary into a major figure, that the original thinkers – Paul and Jesus – didn’t take any BS from women.
I’m gonna have to read that, the whole book. I read Manipulated Man not long ago, wow, and that would be hard to top. I find it hard to believe the author is a woman so full of philosophical insight. Her and Ayn Rand, that’s all the female philosophers I can respect, at least so far as I know. I’ll have to digest it all later. I’m spent for today, so not sure what the ramifications and connections would be, but yes, what exactly is our history?
I think this allusion to the Jew as the eternal usurer stems from embedded programming, in a manner of speaking. The Jew took food off my ancestors table… the Jew (Rockerfeller) is behind neumismatic conspiracies even today…
When I read your blog and watch your videos, I then have to chuckle to myself at how facile you can be at times, when a thought from the basal ganglia slips through and spoils what is otherwise a scholastic feast of your neo cortex…
We can get into a discussion about who did what, but I’m not going to fall into that trap. I respect Christians too much to point out their mistakes of the past, and I especially refuse to criticize Christians behind their backs to avowed atheists (albeit “Bad” atheists). Sufficed to say, your knowledge of modern literature is quite good, but you are completely ignorant of the Old Testament and its derivatives, and when you cannot explain certain circumstances, you fall back to the the trusted Jewish scapegoat to fill things in.
This is not a critique on the article, rather on your encouraging response to Doug and a general trend of criticizing us Jews in the past… I also saw a pretty vile antisemitic video in your “Liked” secion of Youtube a while back, but I think you have since removed it. What a shame, such an incredible mind, but such a trashy Cantnadian…
“This ladyargues that Christianity sold out when it turned Mary into a major figure, that the original thinkers ”
I agree with her on that point. But you know Protestantism as well as a reaction to indulgences is also an attempt of the reformers to turn back to the apostolic church which also has the effect of depedestalizing Mary back into her biblical position. It remains a hot-button issue between the protestants and catholics to this very day.
Unfortunately they were not able to undo the feminization of the church which to this day since the 12th century still plagues the institution:
http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm
Strangely enough the 12th century is also the era that the gynocentric culture of Chivalry arose:
http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/
Yes, Catholics may have a thing for Mary, but the Catholic Church is still faring better than, say, the Anglicans, who have been all but reduced to women running around in technicolor dreamcoats.
Christianity has always had a strong feminine presence. Recall the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana, where Mary basically nags her own son into performing a miracle to make wine for the party. The key is to use positive female traits to supplement and support the positive male traits that spearhead the operation. Look at the Orthodox, the most patriarchal of all the Christian Churches: you can’t swing a crosier without hitting an icon of Mary.
Not many people know it, but Martin Luther had a strong personal devotion to Mary. His beef with the veneration of Mary was that too many people turned her into a sort of benevolent Mother Goddess while God became the abusive father who beats you for spilling water. Christianity was becoming dualistic, and Luther hated that.
@Moishe The Rockerfellers aren’t Jews, though… Maybe you mean the Rothschilds…
Anyway, I agree. I think we really ought to put these sort of sentiments you mentioned aside. It won’t do us any good in moving forward. And it’s far from reality. However I don’t feel the owner of this blog has them.
Personally, I can’t think anything bad about Jews, but I know there are bad ones – mostly because they’re irreligious, secular atheists (the members of the Frankfurt School come to mind…). Those are the Jews we should talk about. Not the wealthy ones, not the bankers – the utopian/revolutionary types. Those ones.
I don’t think this Mary Thing is such a problem, though I’ve heard it before. Anyway plenty of religions venerate some figure of femininity or other… Besides, she’s a figure of feminine virtue, so what’s the problem ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
@Moishe On balance, looking back and reviewing in full what ‘Reality’ Doug said, I think it was really ‘uncool’ of him (and definitely intolerant). My apologies to you good sir if I came across as supporting him or something.
@sean
I find this unsurprising as what now constituted the orthodox church used to be united to the roman catholic church. Hence they inherited much of the traditions.
@sean
This is one of the instances where Jesus demonstrates masculinity essentially saying to mary after her nagging:”Dont tell me what to do”
John 2:4
“Woman what have I do with you? My hour has not yet come.”
Marian veneration doesn’t feminize the Roman church any more than it feminizes the Greek church. Many Mediterranean and Slavic peoples are quite well balanced and not feminized in spite of strong Marian devotion among them. Mary always points to her Son, and anyone who worships her as a goddess has it wrong and would get frowned upon by Mary herself.
@mts1
“Marian veneration doesn’t feminize the Roman church any more than it feminizes the Greek church.”
Of course. The orthodox is a good example. However it paves the way for gynocentrism:
H.J. Chaytor, The Troubadours: “In the eleventh century the worship of the Virgin Mary became widely popular; the reverence bestowed upon the Virgin was extended to the female sex in general, and as a vassal owed obedience to his feudal overlord, so did he owe service and devotion to his lady… Thus there was a service of love as there was a service of vassalage, and the lover stood to his lady in a position analogous to that of the vassal to his overlord. He attained this position only by stages; “there are four stages in love: the first is that of aspirant (fegnedor), the second that of suppliant (precador), the third that of recognised suitor (entendedor) and the fourth that of accepted lover (drut).” The lover was formally installed as such by the lady, took an oath of fidelity to her and received a kiss to seal it, a ring or some other personal possession.”
■ C.G. Crump, Legacy of the Middle Ages: “The Aristocracy and Church developed the doctrine of the superiority of women, that adoration which gathered round both the persons both of the Virgin in heaven and the lady upon earth, and which handed down to the modern world the ideal of chivalry. The cult of the Virgin and the cult of chivalry grew together, and continually reacted upon one another… The cult of the lady was the mundane counterpart of the cult of the Virgin and it was the invention of the medieval aristocracy. In chivalry the romantic worship of a woman was as necessary a quality of the perfect knight as was the worship of God… It is obvious that the theory which regarded the worship of a lady as next to that of God and conceived of her as the mainspring of brave deeds, a creature half romantic, half divine, must have done something to counterbalance the dogma of subjection. The process of placing women upon a pedestal had begun, and whatever we may think of the ultimate value of such an elevation (for few human beings are suited to the part of Stylites, whether ascetic or romantic) it was at least better than placing them, as the Fathers of the Church had inclined to do, in the bottomless pit.”
Source:
http://gynocentrism.com/2013/11/15/the-sexual-relations-contract/
The Divine Feminine has been edged out of Christianity and Islam over hundreds of years but She is there at both of their roots: Ancient Judaism. However She was not as fully fleshed out in that Middle Eastern desert system as she was in the Ancient Indo-European systems of what is now erroneously called “Paganism” in the West and “Hinduism” in South Asia.
People of European descent need to get back to their ancient Indo-European and Pan-Asian cultural roots if they are to ever regain a positive sense of identity, spirituality, and ethics.
Copying and pasting Judeo-Christian-Islamic Abrahamic Father God without a Divine Feminine Consort bullshit has ruined us.
“Ancient” and Rabbinic Judaism had Feminism well-controlled until the hedonistic Greeks and their Roman successors fouled their aura like a noxious pox. Don’t blame Abrahamism for feminism. And Islam isn’t an Abrahamic religion. Ishmael was a proto-Semite, not a Moslem.
This isn’t Monarchism, this is Crusaderism.
Namaste Moishe!
“Don’t blame Abrahamism for feminism.”
Is that directed to me? If so, I don’t “blame Abrahamism” for Feminism. I don’t think Feminism is a bad idea in and of itself.
“And Islam isn’t an Abrahamic religion.”
Islam holds the prophets of the Old Testament as its foundational prophets.
“This isn’t Monarchism, this is Crusaderism.”
You’ve lost me. What isn’t Monarchism or Crusaderism?
I’m against both, by the way.
Om Shalom! And have a consciousness expanding Passover.
:)
Hello my Hindu friend,
Islam only holds the prophets of the Old Testament with any esteem to the extent that it serves their Koran… For example: Islam’s viewpoint today is that Isaac was mischevious and Ishmael was the righteous one who was to be sacrificed by Abraham, contrary to Genesis 22, where it is quite blatant that Isaac was to be sacrificed. (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sacrifice.htm)… So the Mohammadans liked the Bible enough to steal the story from it, but then swap the roles around as it benefits their narrative.
The Crusaderist comment was intended towards “Reality Doug”. I think he and Aurini are skirting the relative truth that the best “Monarchs” Christianity had to offer were Autocrats at best, and acknowledging that, they would then be forced to admit that the most stable monarchies were the Jewish monarchies. Instead, I see references of Jews as “degenerates” as if somehow Monarchy is anathema to us when the opposite is the truth. Doug correctly points out that many bona fide degenerate Jews today are collectivists of the Totalitarian stripe, but what is the point of focusing on that when it is plain to see that they are just as degenerate as any other ordinary Marxist, and that is why I sense ulterior motive.
Yes, the fact of the matter is that Christianity, both Catholic & Protestant, has been feminized. For a detailed exploration of this see: “The Church Impotent” by Leon Podles. As a Christian, I do bemoan this and yes Aurini is correct as he commented that “the original thinkers Jesus & Paul didn’t take BS from women” …but at the same time Jesus showed more respect for women than anyone of his day. And who were the first to view the empty tomb? Women. In that day & age the accounts of women were worthless in court & for verifying important events. Interesting. As always as balanced approach is best. We have swung too far to the feminized side in both Christianity & our culture as a whole. But lets not swing too far to the other side in response, but instead get back to balance. BTW, love your work Aurini, and just ordered your book.
[quote]“Enjoy the Decline” is not a screed of pessimism – but of Hope.
[/quote]
The people who blog about ‘enjoying the delcine’ (like Vox Day) rarely, if ever post anything optimistic. They blog about ‘the latest economic downturn’ or ‘more children are being born out of wedlock’ or whatever. The focus of those people IS on the negative rather than the positive. So it disproves your belief that ‘enjoying the decline’ is a message of hope.
If these people were genuinely interested in living a positive life, then they would live a positive life regardless of what circumstances they found themselves in – for better or worse. They would also encourage/blog about positive ideas to help other people, but they don’t. Their fixation is on ‘decline’ rather than optimism.
(My frustrations at this meme are best summed up here: http://anotherandrosphereblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/for-all-of-bloggers-and-commentors-who.html)