Vae Victis

It’s a strange thing these days to talk of the invasions of the West. In some ways, the only reason we talk of these is because the West – largely – won. Nobody talks about the repayments due from the Ottoman Empire, because it was destroyed after the First World War. Has anyone requested subsidies from the Mongolians for the people they slaughtered? No, because Mongolia has lost its empire as surely as any other.

In part this is about the idea in Australia and in America of the so-called ‘Invasion Day’, that we should not celebrate the founding of our nation or the colonisation thereof, but instead that we should look at it as an invasion, a tragedy, when we came to these primitive but beautiful peoples and imposed civilisation upon them. This is something that has only come up recently, along with the typical social justice warrior nonsense.

Now why has this come up now? The answer is unfortunately simple. What do these talks of ‘reparations’ and what-have-you have in common? They share the same identity politics as the rest of the evil that SJWs spew. White vs Black, White vs Red. Why would they do that? Even a sensible overview of the matter would pick up the most obvious part of it all. Even taking for granted the proposition that the descendants of those responsible should pay for the alleged crimes of their parents, it still cannot escape the fact that most of those who would be punished are not necessarily related. Whatever else justice may be, we know it is not to punish those who are not responsible for a crime.

The idea is not to promote justice, though. We are not dealing with people who are fighting for justice, but for social justice, and those two are inevitably opposed to each other. Justice is, simply, to render unto others what they deserve. If a man has bargained for a good and the good is with-held, it is justice to render to him that good. Social justice is to render all people equal. If one man is smarter than another, that man must be held down to the lower level. This is the reason they are promoters of reparations and evil commemorations. They want to make all people equal, and so they start by splitting society into groups and making those groups equal. All black people must be victims of discrimination. All white people must be successful and rich. All men must be paid more than women. All women must be victims of an oppressive patriarchy.

The problem facing the defenders of Western civilisation face is that they believe in logic, reasoning, and objective truth. Those attacking it have no such delusions. A reasonable argument is dismissed because of the source. Any who might try to speak against the segregation that the Left is forming is cast out.

You will see this increasing over the next years. In a way, it is the defenders that have already lost. Their vision, their ideal of a united and rational society that seeks the common good, must be sacrificed at the altar of victory. The Left has overtaken society to such an extent that people support people who are on their side, not who are right or who do the right things.

In the West, you will continue to see race-baiting and identity politics dominate the media and the culture. Any proponent of such is a traitor, and the traitor must receive the harsher punishment than the enemy. The enemy you can respect, for at least they are honest and have a goal. There can be no more wretched or lost person than a traitor, and they are truly the children of Judas. They continue trying to hand over the legacy of Christ to those who would destroy it. May the Lord forgive them in this life or the next.

Premarital sex, or, how to destroy people by giving them freedom.

The best way to destroy a tall and secure building is to attack the foundations. You accomplish two things by doing so. The first is that you avoid what protects it, and second you turn its strength and majesty against it. Without the proper foundations, the building falls under its own weight.

So it is with societies. To destroy one, you should not merely fight a war or the like. They can withstand such more than an individual can. Instead, one must destroy the foundations of the society. What is the foundation of Western Civilisation? It is, in fact, the same foundation as all civilisation – marriage and the family. So the end goal of the enemies of Western Civilisation is to destroy both.

One of their chief weapons in this war is pre-marital sex. What this does is it attacks the human being in three ways. First it attacks them spiritually. It says that you are no different from the animals that rut in the fields, unable to choose yay or nay. Secondly it attacks them mentally. It hurts them and creates false bonds in their mind. Thirdly it attacks them practically. It leads to a higher divorce rate, and more failed relationships leaving them impoverished.

Let us examine these in order, then. Why does pre-marital sex attack you spiritually? It does so by saying that you are no more than your body, and your body’s desires. How is this so? The concept of pre-marital sex is, in effect, the same as adultery. You are saying that you cannot control your desires, and keep to what is good. Instead, you simply must resort to what you or your body wants. In effect, you are turned from objective morality into relativism. What is right for you may not be right for someone else – perhaps they are homosexual, or under-age, or whatsoever the particulars may be – but it is not because the act itself is wrong. In effect, it is saying whatever is comfortable is good. Yet if you examine all of human history, up until this time nobody has thought of that as the case. It was always the person who did the difficult thing, who made the personal sacrifice, that was the hero. This man chose outside of his comfort, outside of his desires. That was why he was heroic, why he was lionised. Now we turn it the other way. We turn following desires into being the new heroism. So the person who lacks control, who lacks any ability to choose what they do rather than following their desires, is praised.

What this leads to socially is that if one is married, they no longer have any training in discipline, in remaining faithful to their spouses. Adultery becomes the next bar to ignore. We see that already in ‘open relationships’ or the like. What does this teach children? That this is normal, and good behaviour. In effect, what happens is they destroy the idea of marriage being exclusive. Although they may still claim to believe it, they disregard it in their actions. They are effectively lying to each other, and to themselves, with their body. People can not long live lying to themselves, and so eventually they are forced to choose between saying they believe in exclusivity through marriage or they do not. Almost inevitably, with this training in laxity and ill-discipline, they admit that they do not.

How does it attack them mentally, then? Simply by chemically brainwashing them. Oxytocin is the chemical released when one does something intimate with another person, from the least - eye contact - to the most - the marriage act. More than simply being a chemical that we note and that has little side effects, it serves to build a bond with the person with whom you are being intimate. When the relationship inevitably breaks, it leaves those bonds still in the brain chemically. Not only does this cause emotional pain, but it leaves you vulnerable. Like a chemical addiction, you can be left incapable of acting rationally. Couple this with the lack of discipline that is taught by such loose behaviour, and you leave a person in a sad state.

Now let us turn to the practical. Simply put, a person who engages in premarital sex has a higher chance of divorce. Whether the mass of divorce can be simply attributed to pre-marital sex or not is not determined, but it seems obvious that it is a factor. How this emerges is as an obvious trend of the first and second effects of premarital sex - firstly, a lack of discipline and training to resist desires and comfort in place of good, and secondly prior bonds that continue to pull on the person. If one is constantly thinking of a previous lover, and remembering the 'fun' and attraction, while knowing the undesirable traits of your spouse, your joy will be stolen by the comparison. Without the training to resist what you may feel, you will find it almost impossible to start with the adultery of the mind, and then later adultery in the flesh.

Why does this matter, though? One may say that the family is an obsolete unit, fit only for the past. It may have served its purpose then, but its purpose has long-such passed.

They are wrong.

When the United States of America wrote their constitution, a significant debate was held on the matter of the federal government and whether it should be able to raise an army. This was because the people, who had thrown off an oppressive regime, feared creating a new tyrant in its place. This was the purpose of the Second Amendment - to allow the people to form militias, to be armed and to train in the use of their weapons, so that should the government become a tyranny, they might resist it.

Key to this was the militia, the group. One man could not resist an army, and the people knew this. Together they could do so.

So it is with a family. The family not only forms a stable bond that one can rely on, but also provides a wide range of skills, talents, and experiences for a person to draw upon in need. What may be a problem for one may be easily solved by another. So it firstly provides support for a person in need. It is more than just that, however. It provides the learning ground for society, for morality, and every virtue. Even more so, it provides the building blocks of a society. In the family, the values of the culture - freedom, justice, fraternity - are demonstrated and lived out. Without the family, the culture falls, and so does the civilisation. To treat it as obsolete is the sign of folly, deception, or treason.

Western civilisation, the civilisation of liberty and reason, is under attack. From without by terrorists and rogue states, threatening liberty with the cause of security, and from within by the treason and sedition of the left. The deliberate separation of sex ad marriage is one of the key weapons of the traitors trying to bring the West down from within. Make no mistake - entering into this, promoting it or normalising it, ignoring it, or saying merely that it is just being 'young' and 'experimenting' is providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Sola Sentiens

When the people of the future look back on the west, they will say ‘But how did this civilisation, with all of its military power and technology, fall? It had no enemies capable of defeating it, it had no great revolution, no disaster fell upon it. How did it disappear?’ The answer lies in these three great benefits. When a man is fighting for his life, he knows that every move he makes, every action, must be dedicated towards success, towards survival, and every move away from that is a mistake. Mistakes must be learned from and not repeated, or else you will fall closer and closer to death.

It is only when one is comfortable that they stop caring for these things. ‘Who cares if we waste a little time here or there? We are content and satiated, what matters it to us?’ You may look at the Roman Empire’s fall to see this played out. Even when the wars were coming closer and closer to Rome, they were comfortable. Who cared what happened in the provinces? They turned from the facts – that the Empire was falling and under attack – to their feelings – that they were comfortable and lacked for nothing.

One can see this played out today as well. Of the monied and elite classes, who cares for the state of the world? We see people pouring out into Europe in search of safety and security, and the only response of the leaders is ‘What does it matter to us?’ We have turned from reason and facts into a comfortable lifestyle, and just like Rome, we will fall.

Where can we see this departure from reason in our own personal lives, though? Look at the social issues of today, of gay ‘marriage’ and transgenderism. Each of these turns away from facts and from reason into feelings. Let us examine them one by one.

Gay marriage is a continuation of the denial of final causes. What is marriage for? It is for three things: the union of families, the support of the spouses, and for the bringing forth of children. Gay marriage agrees with two and denies the third. One may say that this ignores those couples who are infertile, but there is a difference. Gay marriage is completely unopen to children, while those who are infertile often do not know or may be open to children. Thus, gay marriage ignores one of the three legs of marriage, and yet people argue for it. Why do they argue for gay marriage? Primarily it is because of feelings. They want to ‘feel’ normal. They can provide no logical or reasonable argument for what they want, just that it ‘feels’ good. And so we turn from a society that grows and is vibrant, into a society that seeks only pleasure.

Transgenderism is the idea that what you feel you are is what you really are. One can already see the flaw in this, and how it links with gay marriage in that denial of reality. It is more insidious, however. Like gay marriage, it demands to be recognised – you must not only tolerate these people as being deluded, but you must approve of them doing so – but it also forces the person who is so confused into permanently altering their body. Worse, parents do the same to their children. One of the first cases of someone being ‘transitioned’, David Reimer, was done as an infant. The victim later committed suicide, and his brother, forced to assist in the delusion, developed schizophrenia and died from an overdose of antidepressants. Neither of them was tricked by the denial of the truth, but both had to pretend it was true. Today children are almost pressured by parents who believe that this is a real thing, and not just a delusion conjured up by comfort and a desire to ‘be special’, to say they are transgender. How many of these will take their own lives? Almost 40 percent.

One might ask here when the world will see its mistakes. If a group of people is committing suicide at 40 percent, how can we say they are healthy and normal? How can we say that where they are is okay, and that if it makes them feel good, it must be good?

The West cannot see its mistakes because it does not care about them. It no longer fights to survive, it no longer strives forward in some great goal, but merely sits decaying, like autumn leaves, drifting wherever the wind blows.

The West sits in decadence while the sun sets, and they turn to feelings alone to determine what is true and what is false. Do not accept that. If your feelings alone tell you what is true and good, what you should do, then you are nothing more than an animal. You are a rational being. Do not settle for what lowers you to the level of a brute beast.

The Crime of Abortion

The downfall of the West begins five hundred years ago, with the so-called 'Renaissance'. This blight upon the world and upon humanity denied the idea of formal and final causation. Final causation is the idea that things happen with an end in mind. This does not mean that the end is necessarily intended by the actor - for example, a river does not intend to reach the river mouth, but that is its end - but it means that there is a discernible order in the world.

This left two forms of causation - material and efficient. To explain anything, we would turn to what made it up, and what it does. While these run into their own problems in trying to explain anything in science, we are looking at abortion only today.

Abortion is a crime against humanity itself. It not only murders the child within the womb, it not only kills the life within your own soul. It perverts the end to which pregnancy and sex are aimed. It turns the human act of love and life-giving into a murderous act of selfish greed and lust.

There are many arguments that the murderers of their own soul use to defend abortion - that the child is not a child because it is not developed enough, bodily autonomy, the mother's health, the health of the child, poverty or other material concerns. Each of these is easily countered.

The first is that the child's stage of development removes their humanity. This is a ridiculous idea. They usually say that either at some stage of development in the womb, or when they are born, they magically gain humanity. Push them further. Ask them why they say at that stage. 'Because they can survive outside the womb' is one answer - at that point, ask them how long a child will survive without any care at one day old. 'They have all the parts of humanity, all their organs whole' is another - then does someone who does not lose their humanity? Does someone who loses their arm in an accident lose their humanity? How about someone who donates a kidney? 'They are born' - then would it be right, if they were half born, to take a knife and stab it through their neck?

The second is the concept of bodily autonomy, the idea that no-one can be forced to have anything done to their body. Extrapolate this a little. Would it be okay for them to leave the newborn infant by itself to starve? Why not? Nobody can force someone to yield their bodily autonomy. Again they demand that the government come in and take your hard earned cash with guns and soldiers. Why is it that they demand bodily autonomy in one case, and not the other?

The mother's health is the next one, and it is the first that does not even attempt to be one based on either reason or logic, but emotions. After all,  why should we murder someone because there's a chance of another person dying? It does not matter to the one making the argument, because it is not a valid argument. Ask them this question. What is more heroic? Dying to save another's life, or taking another one's life to save your own? They will say the first, but most people cannot do it. In which case you say 'but why should we promoting the less good choice of action?' And that is only in those times when the mother's life is threatened. 'Should I kill a man to make my life more comfortable? Why?'

The most abominable is the fourth - that of the health of the child. This one is pure evil, and no-one who cites this can be called human. 'We must kill this one, so he does not feel pain!' Merely point out that their reason is because of the child's quality of life, and they have reduced it to zero.

Poverty or other material reasons - age and the like - are merely fear. These must be sympathised with, but it should not be permitted to surrender before the fight has begun. This must be dealt with in one of two ways. If you are dealing with someone who is considering an abortion for these circumstances, you must act to stop them. Offer to help them, to support them. On the other hand, those who are making an argument that these should be allowed must be countered without mercy.
Adoption is an option, for which waiting list for newborns is far longer than the total abortions for every year. So age or poverty or state of life or what-have-you is not going to be the end of the world for either if you take that option. On the other hand, while it may be difficult for those who want to keep the child, if you try, it is not impossible. Extreme poverty does not exist in the western world. It simply doesn't. Charities, welfare, etc provide great support for those in crisis.

No argument lasts for abortion, only the argument against abortion. It is murder, plain and simple.