The Will to Annihilation

Annihilationby Glenn Fairman   4/29/14
What are we, as intelligent sentient beings, to say about the incineration of over fifteen thousand aborted children for the production of electrical power in a U.K. hospital?  When all is said and done, there is a certain ghoulish elegance in killing one bird with two stones, even as the political interests of both Feminists and Environmentalists  claim their Dark Victories through the suctioning and immolation of these potentially messy little “carbon footprints.”  And whether children pass out of being via a sink drain or through Baal’s fire becomes little more than a technicians’ calculation concerning BTU production — although those devotees of Gaia might derive a bit more satisfaction in the knowledge that little cremated bodies can now power up smart phones for the fortunate who have managed to pass through that maternal gauntlet unscathed.

From the vantage point of the Progressive worldview, such harsh efficiency can only be looked upon with grim amusement similar to what Goebbels and Eichmann themselves might have taken pride in.  After all, the economic advantages of slave labor, the systematic genocide of a hated race and the harvesting of gold teeth and skin for wedding rings and lampshades are part and parcel the glory of Modernity’s assembly line.  And who can argue with processes that have been enshrined with the legal fiction of positive law? In truth, in a world of men devoid of God, why shouldn’t shrewd and calculating men wax longingly for the opportunity to multi-task in heating their Shangri-La with the sweet savor of the unborn?

How did we arrive at this juncture?

Beneath the Humanist quest for man’s autonomy is a covert aversion to the enchanted quality of life – a seething passion that undergirds their rejection of the natural and embrace of the artificial. This is not to say that the liberal consciousness despises the natural world: for in fact, they are quite comfortable in its qualified deification. What they do detest is the idea of a sovereign sustaining Deity superior to and giving transcendent value to what is highest in nature. Out of hand, they vehemently reject the universe as a contingently created entity and any accompanying set of fixed moral laws that constrict in any way man’s range of prerogatives. In lieu of this, should we find it so surprising then that the mature philosophical core of liberalism is never so fully revealed except when it is engaged in its romantic notion of playing God and wielding death?

Whether through selective abortion or by the deadly spur towards an enlightened “voluntary” euthanasia for the chronically afflicted or geriatric, the Progressive “Will to Annihilation” ultimately discounts and disenchants the life that man could never of himself create. It is within this begrudging truth that a demonic jealousy lurks—even as it swears by its own name that no power shall be withheld from its hands.  Ultimately, mankind’s justice attending slaughter and suicide shall be had on our own terms. Having profaned life by warring down the eternal moral restraints, man in rebellion runs an indiscriminate scalpel across the throat of life, and calls it Utopia.

So great is this hatred for the transcendent frontiers that define humanity, that death itself becomes the primal force that animates Post-Modernity’s mocking existence. To wit, a merciless Science evangelizes its Gospel of Natural Selection predicated on a vast ocean of incalculable morbidity.  Nothing lies beyond the material world for those who honor neither nature nor revelation.  As a result, the brutish sacraments of: nascent infanticide, euthanasia, sterile homosexuality, faceless egalitarianism and the slow motion suicide of substance abuse are entombed within the very center of the Progressive’s barren project of human emancipation. By scrupulous design, these acts are antithetical to the Heart of God. Having declared war on the beauty of Life rightly understood, man’s terrifying visage looks out upon the fruit of their own beastly hands and pronounces these perversions as a species of “blessed liberty.”

Viewed through this corrupted prism, life and death become mere commodities that man has taken upon himself to barter and trade — sustained by the whims of calculation and mood. Unable to yet prevail in the creation of life ex nihilo, the Humanist/Materialist philosophies of man find solace in their perverse manipulation of death, and in relentlessly engineering their Dark City by pruning back the weak and defenseless — effectively herding mankind towards what are entirely human-centered ends. In the struggle between warm well lit hospital rooms and the biological utility of nascent life as ready fuel, we shall have our comforts and innocent life doesn’t stand a chance in Hell to offer its sorrowful refutation to the transaction.

Down deep–so very deep beyond our native perception; one can only sense with an awakened soul that the Anthropocentric  Mind– fettered to the dictates of a Dark Master it refuses to acknowledge as authentic, loathes life in its original and fullest incarnation. Inextricably harnessed to the Dark Constellation it orients and reasons by, the carnal Humanist soul will forever be alienated from that beautiful connected life within the Living God: the same Concentrated Life which had contemplated humanity’s inception and value before time was.

Depending upon how far along your heart is in its transition to stone, you might mock the sentiments of religious-based groups who routinely conduct memorial services for aborted children — expendable lives which were conceived in a night’s pleasure but later discarded with barely an afterthought. To the materialist/humanist: dead is dead, and tears are best shed for those who had at least provisionally tasted existence outside the womb. But the way which a godless society places an asterisk on life and dishonors its silent dead generally speaks volumes about the manner in which they also address the living.  Charity, or the absence thereof, is a function of the organic soul and whatever is pristine or filthy invariably flows from its reservoir — in spite of the political masks we adorn ourselves with for public consumption.

At the end of days, when man’s clay pillars are struck down and the scales have fallen from the world’s eyes, we shall find that man’s morbid philosophies have miscarried and that God has once and for all shattered death like glass — transfiguring its once terrible sting into the status of a child’s bad dream. With that nightmare then firmly behind us, then He who has conquered that villain Death shall be seen for whom He truly is — the Beautiful King of Life. We should exercise great care in how we attend to the precious works of His hands.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (2066 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Will to Annihilation

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    It’s an interesting paradox that Humanists (especially secular humanists) tend to be anti-human. I first noticed this about too many doctors with the Terri Schiavo case, which revealed how comfortable many are with killing rather than healing (if that’s what the person paying them wants). I decided then and there that the movie Coma is >b>no longer fiction, and have distrusted doctors as a group ever since. (I have considered putting some sort of “HELL NO” message on the back of my driver’s license, where they ask if you’re willing to donate organs after death. I’d be willing to do so if I trusted them not to speed things up unnecessarily, which I no longer do and never will again.)

    And now, in Britain (and also in Oregon), the Molochites have actually created their very own Gehennas. We need a Josiah to close down the sacrifices at the high places — but SCOTUS would never allow it.

    • Rosalys says:

      I too will never put it anywhere in writing that it is okay to harvest my organs. Whenever I am asked about making a living will I tell the Dr. that I trust my family to make any decisions about me at the appropriate time – because I do trust my husband and our children and I do not trust any gubmint bureaucrat to do anything in the best interest of anyone but himself.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s an interesting paradox that Humanists (especially secular humanists) tend to be anti-human.

      I know just what you mean, Timothy. It does seem a paradox until you reach under the language to get to the meaning.

      There are technically a dozen or so types of humanism and it would be boring to get into that discussion. But there is a general way to define humanism as practiced: Man is the measure of all things.

      And what this means, in practice, is that man can decide to do whatever he decides to do. There is no higher consideration than his will.

      And given the reality (and it’s a crucial one) that arguably man’s greatest talent is deceit and self-deceit (often in combination with a running and opportunistic sociopathy), reliance upon the will (especially when mixed with politics) is a recipe for disaster.

      Religion is often mocked as a bit of psychological fudgery wherein “God” becomes a person’s ego or superego – playing the role of the internalized parent, thus explaining-away morality (as is usual).

      But without a good moral law internalized – however we choose to think about that law and its parentage – then the will (aka “whatever the hell looks like a good idea at the time to zealous and opportunistic humans often drunk on their own sense of infallibility”) rules over us. There is little or no reflection. This is a disease that many libertarians suffer from as well.

      One may or may not believe in the God of the Bible. But to my mind, to be a “secular humanist” is to announce that one is a bit of a fool. Without a perspective higher than our wills, we will do horrible and foolish things.

  2. Anniel says:

    Thirty years ago my third grade son got into the car after school and sat very quietly before turning to me and saying, “Mom, my teacher says abortion means you kill a baby. Did you know that?” “Yes,” I replied honestly. He started to cry and said, “Then why don’t you stop it?” What can a parent answer? Next day I told his teacher about his reaction to her news. She began laughing and her total response was, “He’ll just have to grow up and get over it.” She walked away, still laughing. People have only gotten more callous since.
    Whenever I read a report on the alarming teen suicide rate I wonder how many of these teens were like me and my friends when we were angry at our parents, “I’ll bet you wish I had never been born. Well, I’ll show you.” We only thought to run away, but in our present culture of death, kids may feel that suicide is their only option.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, I’d want to see evidence that teen suicide has increased in frequency (given the population of teens) before accepting that theory. But it does sound frighteningly plausible. Death-worship (the common name for the political philosophy of Eastasia, also referred to as the Obliteration of the Self — it was probably inspired by Japanese bushido from World War II) leads to more than just increased abortions; it also is leading to euthanasia, and the case is being developed for infanticide (in essence, post-natal abortions). And it can have other consequences as well.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Depending upon how far along your heart is in its transition to stone, you might mock the sentiments of religious-based groups who routinely conduct memorial services for aborted children — expendable lives which were conceived in a night’s pleasure but later discarded with barely an afterthought. To the materialist/humanist: dead is dead, and tears are best shed for those who had at least provisionally tasted existence outside the womb. But the way which a godless society places an asterisk on life and dishonors its silent dead generally speaks volumes about the manner in which they also address the living. Charity, or the absence thereof, is a function of the organic soul and whatever is pristine or filthy invariably flows from its reservoir — in spite of the political masks we adorn ourselves with for public consumption.

    That is a very good paragraph, Glenn.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in one of Dean Koontz’s novels he has a little throw-away (in a scene at a cemetery) of the gravestone of a child who died at birth, with the epitaph: “God loved him so much that he called him home at birth.” I’ve sometimes wondered what atheists would say about that. Would they mock the family’s grief, or treat it with respect? I suspect that the professional atheists would do the former; the ordinary skeptics who don’t actually hate what they say they don’t believe in would do the latter. (It might be nice to ask the militant atheists if they hate references to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as much as they do Christian religious references.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’ve sometimes wondered what atheists would say about that. Would they mock the family’s grief, or treat it with respect?

        As far as I can tell, Timothy, one can go down one of two roads in this life. Given the fact that we all have to eat shit sandwiches (and often many of them), we can either…

        A) Become bitter and forever lash out at others as a way (consciously or unconsciously) to try to unwind and resolve our own internal issues, or

        B) We can do as Blaise Pascal said and figure out how to sit quietly in a room.

        We can thus be Hillary Clinton, forever howling at the moon for some perceived sleight, or we grow up, figure out that life is unfair, and deal with it.

        Howling at the moon, medicating ourselves with drugs or alcohol, and/or playing the blame-game gets old and tends to just shrivel us up inside a black suit of dark armor, as happened with Darth Vader.

        I have no beef with atheists who don’t believe in god. Who really knows? But I do have a beef with people who can’t friggin’ get over themselves and their wounds. We all have them. But we don’t all lead with them. It’s okay to grow up. It’s okay to be a man and learn to carry a stiff upper lip. It’s okay not to cry. It’s okay to be compassionate of others because one has come to terms with one’s own sufferings.

        Or one can screech at the moon and just generally be a pain in the ass and be little more than fingernails forever being run across a blackboard. Mocking those who value life is the lunatic’s way of saying, “Hey, love me love me love me, I’m a liberal.”

        Well, people do need love. But when they are screeching at others constantly and trying to exorcise their internal demons by lashing out at decent people because such people (and their decency) reminds them of the indecent things inside of themselves or that have touched themselves, you won’t tend to ever find that love. And this cycle of screeching indecency very easily perpetuates itself.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    From the vantage point of the Progressive worldview, such harsh efficiency can only be looked upon with grim amusement similar to what Goebbels and Eichmann themselves might have taken pride in.

    This brings to mind an article I read in the Saturday Evening Post (I think) as a boy. It had to do with the Treblinka death camp and their efforts to get rid of the evidence of mass murder as the Eastern Front started to collapse.

    They dug up the bodies and tried to burn them, but this just didn’t work completely or quickly. They made a study and found that women burned better than men, old better than young, fat better than thin. Once this information was discovered, they started constructing pyres accordingly. Such are some of the scientific discoveries of radical materialists.

  5. steve lancaster says:

    KFZ
    If I remember correctly that was a quote from Eli Wiesel, however, it could also have come from Mossad time plays tricks on my memory.

  6. Brilliant! I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone in his/her right mind can deny what the Reformers (Calvin’s early disciples) called “total depravity.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, I guess the “right mind” covers it. The ability to refuse to see the obvious is unlimited, and liberals are excellent practitioners, preferring to see what their dogma proclaims to be true — and not just in their inability to recognize either good or evil behavior (much less to acknowledge the difference between them). But can a liberal ever be said to be in his/her “right mind”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *