learn_to_love_existenceHow do you tackle something as overwhelming as the Kali Yuga of modernity as a single human being?

For a long time, I choose to be cynical about it. I would tell myself things like: “It’s a good thing that our civilization is collapsing. Most people are idiots anyway.” “We are just being punished for our monumental stupidity. We deserve no better” –- and so on and so forth.

But as time went by, I realized that this was nothing but psychological defense-mechanism. By being cynical and distancing myself from the reality of today, I subtly avoided facing it. Instead, I would dream myself away to far away times, past or future. To a society ruled by nobility –- a world where stupidity was not tolerated.

And why shouldn’t I?

After all, such daydreams were the only nourishment for that part of my soul which I still felt to be uncorrupted by the degeneracy of our times. As such, these dreams didn’t just seem innocent enough –- they felt like the only innocence I would ever be able to experience, given the current state of affairs. But oh, how wrong I was…

By permitting myself such dreams of healthier times, I was able to live with my cynicism. But both my cynicism and my ideals were nothing but painkilling narcotics. They were means for me to leave reality behind.

Because I felt doomed to live in a world that I would never be able to relate to and because I found myself adrift on a sea of stupidity, surrounded by halfwits and morons, I, in my mind, felt justified in saying to myself: “Things should be different than they are.”

Thus I was in fact saying to myself: “Because the world is as it is, I don’t have to accept it.” I was arrogantly passing a moral judgment on the world, thinking that I somehow didn’t belong here, in this world, among these people. I was better than that, I thought.

But alas – it is impossible to even conceive of one without one’s world. The mere notion of it is as absurd as an idea of “up” without “down” or “inside” sans “outside.” Without the world there can be no Self.

So why was I judging my world as I did? An obvious answer would be “ego” — that I was desperately clinging to a false notion of myself as being somehow “different” and unique. Even though this was undoubtedly part of the answer, this still isn’t the whole story. Something far bigger, more serious than just “myself” was actually going on.

I was running from the monumental pain and tragedy of our times.

Forgive me for sounding like a hippie or worse, but what I’ve slowly come to realize is, that I in fact feel a tremendous love and compassion for my fellow humans. That I have indeed always felt it, though it for a long time seemed too frightening for me to face it.

What am I getting at? It is hard for me to describe in words, because it first and foremost must be experienced: That there can be no great love of life without an acceptance of suffering and death. And I, in my former cynical misanthropy and dreams of better times, couldn’t accept the fact that modernity is nothing but the great human tragedy. That what we are living in today is nothing but the innate destructiveness of humanity carried to its logical extreme. I was running from my very love of life, of humanity and the world because I wasn’t ready to accept that this entailed an acceptance of all that I hated and despised.

Life is nothing but a journey towards death. If we are to find a bigger meaning in life, we must first accept death, so we can move beyond it. Only through acceptance is it possible to catch a glimpse of the bigger picture – something divine beyond the cycle of life and death. Something eternal.

So it is with the individual, and likewise, I’ve come to realize, with humanity.

If we are to move beyond the modern world with something of humanity left, we must move beyond our cynicism and mere dreams of better times. We must love today, and yes, even humanity as such, with all its stupidity, ugliness and cruelty. This means saying yes to it all, no matter how painful.

This is why I’ve decided to detox, and skip the dual painkillers “cynicism” and “ideals.” And now I’m finally beginning to see something truly meaningful and eternal beyond the ugliness of our times. And so, I invite you to join me – for what I am starting to see cannot be described in words. It must be experienced.

Tags: , , ,

33 Responses to “Detox”

  1. Owl says:

    Accept modernity as is?

    Fuck you.

    • crow says:

      I see, by your attitude, that you do accept modernity as is.

      • S. Larsen says:

        This brief exchange of comments sums up my point in a more conscise way than I could ever dream of.

        Thanks. To both of you :)

        • Owl says:

          > disagree with obviously retarded article premise
          > “Hurr, you must be another individualist lol”

          …No, this article just sucked, especially when compared to the rest of the articles on this site.

          This website is unique in that it’s 99% gold. However until recently Brett Stevens’ “I really don’t hate Jews, I swear!” article was the worst article on this site. That was until this article preaching the virtue of “accepting” failure through magical individual enlightening experience.

          If you don’t like my comments, you could always accept them and love them anyway.

          If that’s repugnant to you then you now understand my point of view.

          • crow says:

            “99% gold” is probably as good as it ever gets. What other site could boast that sort of performance?
            It’s really not reasonable to expect every essay to be exactly the one you wanted to read, is it?
            And even less reasonable to swear at the author.

          • This website is unique in that it’s 99% gold.

            On behalf of all of our writers and supporters, thank you. That’s a very nice thing to say.

            However until recently Brett Stevens’ “I really don’t hate Jews, I swear!” article was the worst article on this site.

            My first question is: is that for content, or mechanics?

            I guess to make it makes zero sense to hate Jews when our enemy is Western liberalism (itself a manifestation of Crowdism).

            Hating Jews makes us into baby-killers, destroys another ancient people attempting to protect themselves against modernity, and keeps us busy doing what doesn’t solve our problem when we should be simply…. solving our problem.

            In fact, it could be that hating Jews is part of that cynical and passive fatalism that Mr Larsen describes, which is assuming that the situation is out of our hands or requires an apocalyptic and unbelievable solution. It doesn’t. Crush liberalism; problem solved.

            • RiverC says:

              Anti-semitism is linked to two cultural conflicts, historically.

              1. Jews were existentially threatened by Christians, whom if I’m correct, converted large swaths of their Judean and Diaspora populations to Christianity in the early centuries after Christ. This created a vendetta between the two groups which simmered for many centuries. Christians did not intend to destroy the Jews, but nonetheless there was a genuine conflict. Add the Roman destruction in AD66 and the genuine conflict between whose interpretation of the scripture is correct, and you get intense, prolonged dislike.

              2. Jews were often outsiders in societies, but most kept to themselves in their own communities. The others, having little love for the society at large, were often dissidents or would take advantage of people outside of their group. Most of the intellectual leftist movements were around half populated by such ‘antijews’. This does not indicate that Jews are evil but rather that they could become an easy scapegoat. The Armenians discovered that being a society-within-a-society means the greater society could decide you were the source of its problems and rub you out. Blacks also have to deal with this problem in some areas; if the only exposure a person has to a black person is being robbed, hard to expect them to have much love for those of dark skin, even if they know they shouldn’t judge a whole group by the actions of one criminal.

              Hating Jews is just part of the ‘solve the problem by not solving it’ – i.e. looking outside your group for the problem, while Liberalism festers.

              Oh wait, perfect video for this


              • Juss says:

                I think the article about the Jews was excellent because it forced certain people to take a look at themselves. It seems like some people have been reading all of the articles on this site about the dangers of blaming malign powers for our own failings, and have been feeling smug in the knowledge that this doesn’t apply to them because they are enlightened and it is the fault of other groups, like Jews, that society is collapsing.

                That article forced people to confront the fact that they were blaming Jews, as an external force, for our problems, and that they themselves are not so different from the leftists they despise. And so those people reacted agressively, as idealogues usually do.

            • Owl says:

              Keep in mind that the “worst article on the site” was still pretty good.

              Silly white trashionalists love to blame Jews for their problems just as much as the black welfare types they demonize (and also coincidentally blame all of their problems on).

              It seems like the majority among those who realize the West has some problems suffer from thinking that those problems stop with the parasites themselves rather than removing the necrotic conditions which allowed parasites to flourish in the first place.

              Your “Don’t hate Jews, they’re nationalists too” article definitely has a ring of truth to it.

  2. Repair_Man_Jack says:

    Cynical realism is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation.

    Aldous Huxley


  3. John Parker says:

    There is much to like and dislike in this essay. I feel like the author devolved into an existentialist rant that put me off a bit and provided no coherent answer to our modern challenge.

  4. RiverC says:

    I sense what Soren is saying, it’s not really ‘accepting Modernity’ per say, but rather understanding it as actually nothing other than the greatest, most painful and horrible tragedy in the history of man. I tried to capture this in a poem awhile ago:

    Love has no history, and history no love
    The mystery of history is what we’re speaking of
    History has no care or concern for the distant way
    For the voices silenced before the coming of the day;

    You are my arms, my legs, you are my hands and feet
    To consider a man not but a cell, would it not be meet
    To curse your birth and die the death, if you then must be
    A statistical consideration of a faceless history?

    But man is neither a thing at all if considered on his own
    Such things are no more human; such things of earth and stone
    That no man is, a statue gross, single and abstruse
    A supposed immortal work of art, a work without a muse;

    But man is not a museum just to stir a sentimental urge
    Man is a procession, a festal funeral dirge
    Played along that distant way, toward the waiting sea
    The stones in love they walked above; such is History.


  5. crow says:

    Why would you “tackle” this Kali Yuga, anyway?
    It is an existent state, but are you part of it?
    It is easy to confuse actual reality with the human-reality that overlays it.
    That is like confusing disease with health.

    Reality is the pre-existing state, unconcerned with, and unaffected by, what humans make of it, or do to it. Humans create their Kali Yuga, and this is their state, not the state of reality.

    Few are able to live in a forest, or upon a mountain, of astride a log upon the ocean. But those that do, can see that reality is what it always was, and will remain.

    People and their societies, are not reality. They are the yeast that lives upon it.

    • George says:

      You are wrong in trying to ignore the destructive effects of Kali Yuga upon broader reality. The destruction and corruption of nature at large on earth as a byproduct of human action is inescapable, even if one tries to distance oneself from modern human society.

      • crow says:

        Nature will endure long after humans.
        It doesn’t need human eyes to survey it.

      • Loretek says:

        Before the modern Ice-Age cycle, there was a giant time period where the “turrible green house gasses” were at such a high level that the poles were tropical.

        Planet didn’t mind – planet was literally warm and fuzzy about it.

        “The destruction and corruption of nature at large on earth as a byproduct of human action” is 20 year old science and most scientists – less your high school environmental science teacher – have moved on to bigger and better things like: The earths tilt causes the cycle and the wobble causes the slight variations in an otherwise mathematical wave – and that “Modern Society” has done next to nothing in terms of changing the planet when compared to the initial exodus of humans unto the world, clear cutting and burning wood the entire way around – they slowed the next glacial expantion that we would be in now had they not – you can thank them for that destruction of Mother Gaia.

        Modern Society simply doesn’t compare – you are unknowingly a pawn for “renewable” (NOT sustainable – ie nuclear power) energy subsidies that drive your own energy bill via forcing energy companies to implement certain percentages of vastly inefficient technology. Technology that hurts the planet more to gain the materials to make it, than it does in saving it – more inefficiency. Technology that the kings of your chess board are reaping subsidy and popular IP benefits from.

        While the genuine saying that you have warped that “humans never made any part of nature better” is true, it is talking about the beauty of nature and not the health of the planet.

        Classic left – take same words, use different meanings, proclaim truth via the accurate original meanings – your meaning coattails along until it becomes the “new” meaning – another classic left idea – changing meaning of words and phrases that are already established … what is that about?

  6. The masses of modernity are awful, but the majority of humanity has been awful forever.

    • crow says:

      You know, everybody says that, but we don’t know.
      What we certainly do know is that the moderns that we know, are mostly awful.

    • Loretek says:

      The effects of some actions throughout history may be awful. But I truly believe this viewpoint to be horribly wrong and cynical – and I do love being cynical. I don’t think any human intentionally does wrong. One always believes they are doing good for something and that that good overtakes whatever actions they have to use to achieve that good.

      In this sense, to say Humanity has been awful forever is cheap and calls Human-Beings to be demonic in nature, which is simply not true. It proposes that everyone is evil and a minority is morally higher. When reality is the MAJORITY of humanity is just looking to do good by their loved ones and live an unrestricted life. Look into a child’s eyes and tell me you see awful humanity there. If you do, your a psychopathy.

      While today’s moderns are mostly awful I believe they think they are doing good and are just confused to the point of accepting a false reality, then jumped so far down the rabbit hole, they forgot their confusion and that they even jumped at all.

      And anyone doing terrible for the sake of profit (good for themselves) or worse “trolling” (good for no one but to entertain themselves), may have very well lost what made them good in the first place – their humanity.

      Humanity is good, we make stupid choices, and the dualism of truth and society causes our delusions and conflicts.

  7. Inki Snowe says:

    As a follower of the Old Ways and the sum of all my ancestors, the one thing I know my Gods require of me is that I not submit myself to this stinking cesspool of decay, but rather fight it, in my own little sphere of life, in whatever small or large ways I can; and that I preserve, by instilling it into my children, every scrap of Truth, Beauty and Wisdom left to me; that I strive to keep this tiny flame alight, so that in my children’s hearts, and their children’s children’s hearts, may smoulder a few dim embers of the Golden Age, ready to blaze into life once more, when the world is renewed. That task is my sole remaining duty in this age of darkness, and I refuse to neglect or abandon it. I do this out of love for the good in man and the good in the world, and because I believe that the highest manifestations of my people’s traditional culture represent the pinnacle of human cultural development on this planet and the greatest force for Transcendent Good that is possible in this world. It is not clinging to the past, or escapism; it is the only way we have left of keeping the light alive, somewhere. If we relinquish that, our souls are lost, and we are no better than the swarming hordes of Marxist philistines who gleefully impel the Kali Yuga toward its ultimate orgy of destruction by relentlessly attacking all that remains of the Beautiful, the Excellent and the Good.

  8. Tomás says:

    Could it be the Alcázar de Segovia, in the photo? I’m almost completely sure but…

  9. John Parker says:

    “Forgive me for sounding like a hippie or worse, but what I’ve slowly come to realize is, that I in fact feel a tremendous love and compassion for my fellow humans. That I have indeed always felt it, though it for a long time seemed too frightening for me to face it”.

    This universal love for humanity is the heart and soul of liberalism.

    As a traditionalist, I love my family, my close circle of friends, and tribe. Any so-called feelings of love for the shapeless and nameless mass of humanity is the compelling utopian notion that we are all brothers, and what diminishes one, diminishes all. Nonsense!

    Sartre, when told of the horrors of Stalin’s purges and gulags, was asked why the communists did what they did, and he answered “for love”.

    Universalism and utopianism doesn’t work and in fact is a philosophy of which “humanity” is loved but the single human being or tribe who stands in the way of the perfect, egalitarian society can and will be sacrificed. And it willingly makes that exchange for the ambiguous and ethereal “good of all mankind”.

    • RiverC says:

      I don’t know that he necessarily pronounced a ‘love for all humanity’, but simply for his ‘fellow humans’. This is ambiguous; remember that many of these leftists, at the same time proclaiming to love all humankind really hated their fellow man with all of his imperfections and failings.

      Christian universal love at least has nothing to do with conceptual universals, but is a universal built inductively on particulars; if you remember an inductive proof starts with the base case (n=0 or n=1 or whatever the minimum is) then establishes a rule to extend that case to an increasing number. This is the reason why the great commandment is ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ and not ‘love that humans may become divine’. You have to start with your ‘actual neighbor’ (realism here) and be able to love any person as your neighbor. One who can do this actually loves all mankind without ever having some abstraction; they love all men as one man, and that man is the man beside them, across from them, at whatever time and in whatever place it might be.

      The liberal doesn’t see the person there they only see what they think the end of all people is, which if you think about it is a psychological defense against Christianity.

      In fact, Marxism and Liberalism are merely a coping mechanism developed against Christianity. I’m sure that other religions and times had their forms of this thought, developed as ‘critiques’ (read: coping mechanisms) of the religion based on experience.

      • I wonder if liberals understand love at all. To love a herd of animals is to know when to separate some from others, and when some must be born and when some must die. Love is a heavier burden than universal acceptance, which has the traits you describe and seems to originate in a fear of being insufficient, projected outward onto the herd.

    • S. Larsen says:

      ‘Love’ is a very misunderstood word, and perhaps it wasn’t wise of me to use it. I still think it is the right word, though. I am speaking of love, but not what most people would understand by it.

      Bitterness is the heart of liberalism. Sure, liberals cloak their frustration and anger in the language of love, but when you look at how they behave, and how the common liberal lives, it should be clear to anyone that they don’t know the first thing about it. I think Stevens is right: Liberals actually don’t know what love is – they just know that they want the appearance of love.

      When you become bitter, you withdraw into your own world, and judge reality as if it should be something other than it is on a fundamental level. ‘Reality should be as it is not – and everyone who doesn’t think like me is the problem’ – this is the definition of liberalism for me.

      It’s like saying that A = A is wrong, and that it should be A = B. That A indeed could equal B, if it wasn’t for all these ‘unenlightened’ people insisting that A = A.

      Here on Amerika we instead try to say: Reality is as it is – and those who think otherwise creates problems for the rest of us. Hence we judge liberalism to be the problem, whereas liberals judge reality to be the problem. There’s a huge difference: We say that wrongheaded thinking about the world is bad. Liberals say that everybody that doesn’t think exactly like they do are bad.

      I am not trying to con anybody into liberalism – if that was my intention, this would probably be the worst place on the net to try and do so. Quite the contrary: I advocate ridding oneself of the secret poison that pumps through the veins of all liberalism, which is bitterness and denial.

      Bitterness and denial lead to ridiculous and counterproductive ideas. Anti-semitism is a good example.

  10. lisacolorado says:

    I’ve been thinking about this same thing in the recesses of my consciousness. Things are the way they are. What are you gonna do?

    First off, do we understand it all and know it’s true that things have gone wrong? It looks like it but people’s needs are still the same, and we can all still laugh while at other times trying to speak of better principles.

    Second, How would we be if we didn’t have this thought, that our society has gone wrong. It wouldn’t change anything. There’s so little we can do about it either way.

    The truth is, nobody would be persuaded by threats and fears and doom. What people are drawn to is a smile, welcoming, and clarity.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>