The logical endpoint to leftist thinking

Todd May, a philosophy professor at Clemson University, recently wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled “Would Human Extinction be a Tragedy?” and it can be found here.  A few snippets from the article:

There are stirrings of discussion these days in philosophical circles about the prospect of human extinction. This should not be surprising, given the increasingly threatening predations of climate change. In reflecting on this question, I want to suggest an answer to a single question, one that hardly covers the whole philosophical territory but is an important aspect of it. Would human extinction be a tragedy?

To get a bead on this question, let me distinguish it from a couple of other related questions. I’m not asking whether the experience of humans coming to an end would be a bad thing. (In these pages, Samuel Scheffler has given us an important reason to think that it would be.) I am also not asking whether human beings as a species deserve to die out. That is an important question, but would involve different considerations. Those questions, and others like them, need to be addressed if we are to come to a full moral assessment of the prospect of our demise. Yet what I am asking here is simply whether it would be a tragedy if the planet no longer contained human beings. And the answer I am going to give might seem puzzling at first. I want to suggest, at least tentatively, both that it would be a tragedy and that it might just be a good thing.

Not surprising that this kind of question would come from academic philosophers.  Further down…

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.

Ahhh, the old “science is settled” argument with global cooling global warming climate change.  Think of the animals!  And further…

So, then, how much suffering and death of nonhuman life would we be willing to countenance to save Shakespeare, our sciences and so forth? Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals. There is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase; it would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger. Moreover, those among us who believe that there is such a gap should perhaps become more familiar with the richness of lives of many of our conscious fellow creatures. Our own science is revealing that richness to us, ironically giving us a reason to eliminate it along with our own continued existence.

One might ask here whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans. To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying. In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice. The two situations, then, are not analogous.

It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy. I don’t want to say this for sure, since the issue is quite complex. But it certainly seems a live possibility, and that by itself disturbs me.

One thing that it seems only a few people recognize, Vox Day and Owen Benjamin, to name a couple, is that we living in the West are seeing a very concerted effort to remove Christianity from the very fabric of Western Civilization.  As globalism continues to creep in this will only get worse as all of these far-left totalitarian ideologies try to remove Christ and push materialism above all.

Why does this matter?  Watch the video above and the one at the end to see just a few of the effects. When Christ is removed from Western Civilization, things begin to crumble.  Morality is questioned.  The lines are blurred.  We begin to accept worse and worse, more heinous things without even noticing it.  Boys are told they can be girls and vice versa.  Values are inverted.  On top of this, there is no “higher” figure or idea to turn to for help, guidance, and hope.  When Christ is removed it’s easy to see how one could view humans as no different or special or important than any animal.  Often times when one removes Christ they also lose any sort of connection to their soul or looking at things beyond what we see and hear.

Maybe this sounds ludicrous or over the top to some people, but it’s a very real problem.  Nietzsche understood this.  He obviously wasn’t a devoted Christian but he recognized the potential peril of removing God.  He was concerned what we’d replace Him with.  And as he points out often times this leads to a road of nihilism.  This take on nihilism sums it up nicely:

Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is the most extreme form of pessimism. Put simply, it is the belief that everything is meaningless, but this oversimplifies the concept. Nihilism is a transitional stage that accompanies human development. It arises from weariness. When people feel alienated from values, and have lost the foundation of their value system but have not replaced it with anything, then they become nihilists. They become disappointed with the egoistic nature of ‘truth’ and ‘morality’ and so on, but at the same time recognise that what is egoistic is necessary. The notion of free will seems contradictory. Values, though originating from the ego, have been placed in a sphere so far outside and ‘above’ that they are untouchable. Any attempt to really figure out the ‘truth’ or posit a ‘true reality’ has become impossible, thus the world appears meaningless and valueless. The nihilist realises that all criteria by which the ‘real world’ have been measured are categories that refer to a fictitious, constructed world. This sense of alienation results in exhaustion.

That rings a little too true in 2018, yes?

Back to the article.  Only in this kind of nihilistic world would one even consider questioning the value of humanity as the way he’s posited it.  Christians obviously do not have this problem.  Many religions do not, for that matter.  It is not surprising that atheism is on the rise these days and that more people probably take the viewpoint of the author than one might think.  This is an absolute inversion of values.  And I suppose at this point this must be said: it is not healthy for one to think that wiping out one’s species is the best thing for them to do.  That kind of self-destructive mentality is dangerous.

And yet we see it everywhere every day.  I can think of at least one group of people who are encouraging the very policies that will have them wiped out from their own civilization.

What does this say about the current state of culture?  Where a major “news” outlet is publishing opinion pieces like this.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s entirely okay for them to do so.  But I’m talking about the climate of our country where this doesn’t even shock people anymore and many will seriously consider this and wonder if maybe it really is a good thing?  That shows how far the Cultural Marxism has seeped in.  How far we’ve shifted to the left.  Whether one is a Christian or not, it is undeniable that Christianity was a central pillar in building this Western society we now live in, and if you like what it has built it must be recognized that it cannot be removed without utter decline into decadence and ruin.  Something to think about anyways this Christmas.  What kind of society do you want to live in?

The Perils of Pax Americana

Pax Americana, American Peace, was a term coined in the mold of Pax Romana and was the idea of civilizational peace amongst the more powerful nations under mostly American rule in the Western Hemisphere . The current Pax Americana is generally considered to have begun post World War II, where America was the dominant power that would act something like the world police. By and large it has worked somewhat okay, with major world wars being averted (so far) and “smaller” wars have been confined to mostly proxy wars with smaller main combatants.

But I don’t want to talk about the merits or follies of Pax Americana on the world stage. Instead, we look inward and ask how has this American peace molded society in America. Has this period of 70+ years of relative peace at least in America propelled America to ever greater heights? On the contrary, I think most people would agree America is not on an overall upward trajectory since World War II. Yes, President Trump is trying to turn that around, but there are many great dangers that continue to lurk and could continue the undoing of this great American civilization.

There are many aspects to Pax Americana that can be discussed, but today we mainly focus on how it has hurt the American people, and more specifically the American spirit. Too much of a “good” thing often ends up yielding terrible consequences. Much like a forest fire can sometimes be beneficial to clean out and make room for new growth, sometimes war or nefarious acts that directly affect us can have positive benefits. NN Taleb hammers this point home in his book Antifragile, and we see it everywhere in the natural world, especially in medicine and with our body. “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” as Nietzsche coined it. War, for all its downsides, does have many positive psychological effects as well. Usually it will unite a people. It puts into perspective what’s really important in life, and gives one more appreciation for what they have (or what they had before war) and for what’s worth preserving, fighting, and dying for. I propose that in our Pax Americana we’ve grown too soft, too comfortable, and taken our freedoms and liberties for granted for far too long. We’ve become complacent, presumptuous, forgetful, and misguided.

One of the main perils of a peace lasting too long is it’s easy to forget how and why we got there. The effect is even more pronounced when you have a failed educational system that often times barely addresses history, or changes it altogether. It is easy to take for granted one’s freedoms when it has been too long since they needed to be defended. One begins to think it is the natural order of things to be free, and consequently it becomes easy to take it for granted and assume it is easy to obtain. One could make an argument we’ve had plenty of wars since World War II that run counter to this. But the reality is all of these conflicts (save for 9/11) have been on foreign soil usually thousands of miles away. And in our modern economy we really do feel very little, if any, effect on our daily lives. If you didn’t take the time to watch the “news” you may have no idea at all that war is even going on. Contrast that to World Wars I and II, where citizens often had to ration food and fuel for the war effort. Factories were converted for military vehicles and weapons, new roles were created and women took over many duties usually saved for men. Curfews, bomb drills, and blackouts all serve as reminders on the home front that things are different, and it’s easier to appreciate what one had when it is in jeopardy. Tragedy and hardship unite people. Communities are strengthened when there is a need, and it fosters fellowship and camaraderie. These stresses to the system and daily life can have a very positive effect.  Again, I do not wish for these things, but they do give us a greater appreciation for what we have.  And unless we constantly educate and remind ourselves of what it “used to be like” during these difficult episodes, we’ll either forget them altogether or unfortunately only learn after another period of hardship.


It’s hard to ignore the war when it hits you where you live.

Something else that comes out when there is lasting peace, at least in our civilization, is the focus turning to other social issues, often times with an over-emphasis. “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” as the saying goes. So it is too in society. Could you imagine the current gender controversy going on during The Civil War or The Great War? You would be roundly (and rightly) completely ignored if you tried to spread the notion that there are 71 genders. The same goes with the transgender bathroom issue. Something tells me the 0.00001% of the population that is transgender wouldn’t have as much pull or have any sway towards changing legislation when hundreds of thousands or millions of people were dying yearly during a war. When there is peace, the minute comes to the forefront, and often times is overblown. And as the peace endures, it only gets worse. Again, we begin to forget why certain laws or practices were put into place in the first place, or the reasoning behind it. Today, we’ve gotten to a point where we can pervert the original intentions, as it was with fitness tests for women in the military, or the police force. Standards are changed, codes rewritten, to allow for greater openness and acceptance when the rules that were initially put in place had very rational reasons behind them.

The Immigration Act of 1965 is another example of irrational change because we forgot why it was there or undervalued its purpose. Pre-1965, America was a mostly homogeneous population, or largely consistent in its makeup since the country’s founding. It was never in doubt, never questioned. The benefits of a society of this sort were never fully appreciated or understood once the threat of war was lost. We assumed anyone could be an American, and that it wouldn’t have far reaching effects on our neighborhoods, educational system, or everyday lives. Like it or not, the majority, if not all wars, have started because of tribal differences. Whether they are racial, religious, or ideological, tribalism was at its root. Yet our hubris got the best of us and we somehow forgot this key fact. And once we opened the doors to anyone and everyone, we lost some of that unity and no longer is there a dominant population or religion to unite the people. One can harp on and on about how diversity is a strength, but the fact remains the less people have in common with each other the less likely they are to congregate or get along. Do you really think you have a better chance becoming friends with your neighbor if you speak English and they only speak Spanish or Arabic?


Would these men be proud of what our country has become?  What they fought and died for?

Which raises another point in that we’ve completely lost our sense of self. We no longer have the pride in being American that we once had, and in fact are often times made to feel guilty to have any pride in the first place. Further, we’ve lost our sense of unity. With the blatant disregard for our immigration laws, and the agenda of pushing multiculturalism, there is no longer a push towards integration when one becomes an American. Assimilation seems to be a thing of the past. And because of this, we are losing any sense of unity as an American people. Observe a crowd watching the World Cup, or how people identify when asked where they are from or what is their background. “I’m American” is hardly ever the first answer. “I’m Mexican” or insert-race-here-with-a-dash-and-American, Mexican-American, Italian-American, etc etc. Multiculturalism in general has destroyed communities and led to civil unrest. Because we no longer try to assimilate newcomers, we’ve become more tribal than ever. Identity politics became the de facto position since Obama came into office, dividing the country on racial and religious lines. The notion of bringing in unchecked numbers of outsiders from all over the world or not seriously policing our borders during a time of war would be ludicrous and absurd. In peacetime, it’s somehow thought to be okay, as if there would be no ripple effects or changes in the fabric of society as we know it.

It’s interesting to observe that this effect isn’t uniquely American, but seems to only affect countries living under this Pax Americana. We see a crisis of identity and deterioration of society and its values in the UK, Germany, France, and most of the Western world. Contrast this to Russia or Japan. They are still proud of their country and their people. They’ve by and large preserved their sense of self. Like us, they have black marks on their history as well, but they don’t let themselves drown in guilt and self-flagellation and are still proud of who they are. Perhaps the fact that World War II was fought with a very heavy cost on their own soil has served as a longer lasting reminder to their people.

So the question remains, are we better off for Pax Americana? In 2018 we are as divided as we have ever been perhaps since 1968 or the Civil War. I am in no way advocating for some kind of war just to refresh our society. Far from it. But if we are to sustain peace and survive as a country we cannot forget our past, the values we fight for, or how and why we arrived at where we are. I’m sure many of these social fights and stands people have made in this peacetime have been with the best of intentions. But there is definitely some iatrogenic effect at work here; we most certainly seem to be doing more harm than good by intervening at all in many of these arenas. The shock and outrage of a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding would seem a bit more petty and inconsequential if we were fighting for our way of life though, wouldn’t it?

No, I do not think we are better off. It has torn up our society, completely changed the demographic landscape, and led to a loss of American pride, which cannot be understated. Looking outwards for a moment, America as World Police has hurt our standing both in our own eyes as well as that of the world. Inserting ourselves into unjust or unnecessary wars, or wars that just plain have nothing to do with us, have left many Americans jaded, feeling guilty, and ashamed of what their country is doing. I have no doubt this is another contributing factor into why we’ve opened our doors to everyone (aside from the nefarious objectives of others in power too). Guilt, or perceived guilt, is a powerful motivator. A Vietnam or Iraq War can completely change how a country’s people view themselves.


Are we any better off for having been in the Iraq War?  Oh right, WMDs…

Pax Americana has hurt our standing on the world stage and had deleterious effects on society on the home front. Most Americans, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives aside, would be happy if the United States re-adopted our pre-World War I foreign policy of staying out of other people’s business. It may not completely solve the problem, but it would be a start. A smaller military and global presence would have obvious benefits to our budget, and put the onus on other nations depending on us (without paying their fair share) to take care of themselves. Having skin in the game is beneficial to everyone.

The Stillest Hour

A well-rounded man of the West should not only be proficient in the attacks currently happening to our civilization, but should be prepared in mind, body, and spirit.  Friedrich Nietzsche is one of (if not the most) the most important philosophers in human history.  Much can be learned by his books, and you will certainly wrestle with your own views on things as you read more and more of him.  So much of his teachings can be used for our benefit today in our fight.  A small excerpt from The Stillest Hour, an aphorism in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

Then was there again spoken unto me as a whispering: “It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come with doves’ footsteps guide the world.”

At this point Zarathustra has gone on his own into the wilderness to strengthen himself in solitude.  He knows what his philosophy is, but is still afraid and unable to speak about it.  And the voice that speaks to him answers with the words above.

We know what is right.  We know our cause, and why we are fighting the war we are in.  It’s difficult to share that now and then.  It is a battle.  It’s still very possible to risk your family, your career, your life in this battle for truth.  As hard as it might be to speak about it, to share it, it’s what needs to be done.  And people like us, speaking up, and fighting for what’s right, will be what makes all the difference.  Check out the entire aphorism here or do yourself a service and purchase the book in its entirety (link above).