Death in the Modern World

Look at me. Death is Real.

When I think of what it is that modernity strives towards as its ultimate good, the suspension of death, and particularly the suspension of death amongst the young comes to mind. I consider the likes of Jordan Peterson or Steven Pinker declaring the roaring success of strategies to mitigate infant mortality, in a weird Hegelian sense they go on to imply that all of the Western world’s toil and struggle was for this moment and this sole achievement. That in mitigating child mortality to near unprecedented levels they have solved a mighty injustice, that only with our modern technology and cultural development could we finally balance the scales of justice. In doing so these types reject all that is good and healthy about nature, and her peculiar ways. They reject the fate and destiny of those too sickly to live, but in doing so they doom wider society to a crippling and unavoidable fate.

“All Life’s light and shade, all her excitement, all her incitement to man to compete with energy and spirit in her game depends precisely on the fact she is amoral–that is to say, that she produces inequalities, contrasts and divergent types, indifferently, lavishly, without taking thought, without mercy. Her call is to the brave, to the stout of heart, and to the adventurous and spirited. Those who, in the midst of this great adventure, cry out “Injustice!” either misunderstand, or wilfully misrepresent the whole scheme.”

Anthony Ludovici: False Assumptions of Democracy

The empirical study of child mortality is a dense and complex subject, only a true expert could decide whether death at the moment of birth is truly death or that there is indeed a grace period where death for statistical reasons does not hold. I don’t wish to nit pick at methodologies or what statistical models these experts should use. At the end of the day they all agree child mortality is falling, and that this is a good thing. The blindspot behind this assertion is truly damning and another indication of the faulty nature of an empirical world view.

“Everyone failed to make progress. Tens of billions of children died. 7 Billions of parents mourned helplessly when they saw their children dying. Despite the relentless suffering no one was able to do much about it.”

Mortality in the past: every second child died, Our World in Data

Who Gets to Define “Suffering?”

As the Austrian economist Per Bylund suggests, poverty is really just the normal state most people in history have existed within, but described in value-laden terms. Death is the only certain outcome in life, it’s something we all must contend with, just like the feeling of want that drives one towards economic activity. So why are our experts so determined to make sure we understand the natural states of man as bad, as things that must be fixed, as the height of injustice. To be rich is to live, to be in poverty is to be in death. This is just the cycle of life, it is the “indifferent” and “amoral” process we are all subject to, some more so than others. 

Of course on the subject of economics particularly it is worth mentioning that in our day and age, where so much of our lives have become centred around chasing an inflationary economy, that such an economy can really only exist on the back of an ever growing population that is able to soak up the inflation. I believe it to be the case that many of the moves made under the guise of the “Great Reset” are likely to be preparation for a situation in which Western populations, and many others globally flatline– and possibly plummet. In the meantime Western elites will continue to fill the gap with an influx of foreign bodies, an elite adverse to the fate of relative poverty sealing us into a fate of demographic replacement –and the never ending threat of financial collapse.

There is always an attempt to conspiracy jacket the idea of “population control”. It is, however, a basic fact of managerial rule, in the society of quantity as opposed to quality, what else are the elites to do but take a farmer-like view over the sprawling livestock. If anything we should concern ourselves with elites who don’t think like the cold emotionless farmer, rather elites who worry for the sick and feeble put the health of the individual well above the herd as a whole.

Population management is a major goal of big globalist philanthropists like Bill Gates and their vaccine campaigns, yet things have clearly changed in even the last 20 years. We have gone from stopping infant mortality in the 3rd world as a highest virtue, to attempting to curtail fertility itself by the application of contraception, mobile phones and feminism. Even the very vaccines and health programs that once caused populations to boom, are now being used to diminish fertility. To a subset of the current elite it is clear that they must actively start thinking more about optimal population numbers.

Even those evil globalists can recognise what overpopulation looks like, a lecture for our great dissidents such as Musk or Peterson may be in order. Despite arguments made otherwise by Western leftists, these developments are being actively applied across the 3rd world in an effort to now control populations downwards.

Clearly population booms as a consequence of technological development either in medicine, food, or shelter, aren’t all they are cracked up to be.Countless examples can be thought of where elites in history had to consider a possible Malthusian outcome, like the early industrialisation of Britain. It is a subtle tragedy with great negative effects. Then of course we are to laud the complexity of the BIG SOCIETY. So many of the awful developments in the modern world, such as the dense and frankly appalling conditions of city living, are there to contend with population booms, what a benefit to us all...

Depopulation on the other hand. Is a blatant tragedy that carries with it many great positives.

The Dance Macabre

Post plague Europe saw massive deflation, more food, more land, and lesser density of people. This is to the betterment of everyone that survived, and many a generation after the fact. It would seem that mass-death events are vital to keeping human society in order. With the caveat that mass-death events like the world wars were skewed to affect those who are typically the healthiest. Whereas events centred around disease, natural disaster, or non-mechanical war benefit the wider human population by biassing survival towards the healthy, fit, and willing. Unlike modern calamities which demand the healthiest be sacrificed for the betterment of the weak, ill, and mentally feeble. How Just.

“It is possible, that is to say, that Humanitarianism is merely an inverted form of cruelty; in other words, instead of directing their cruelty against the undesirable, humanitarians direct it against the desirable, and cheerfully sacrifice the hale and hearty to the physiologically botched.”

Anthony Ludovici: False Assumption of Democracy

Farmers have known for as long as there has been husbandry that one must take care of a flock, and in doing so one must work as natural selection does. Unhealthy or congenitally defective livestock is no good, it must be dealt with or put to alternative use. This is a healthy attitude towards life and death, one that acknowledges its inherent realities.

Sheep, Cows, Pigs, if left with an overabundance of food and no predators will breed themselves into weakness, and lose some of the original purposes they were bred for. The same is obviously true for man, yet any consideration towards this outside of elite philanthropic circles is considered eugenics.

“High rates of infant mortality occur in developing countries where financial and material resources are scarce, and where there is a high tolerance for infant deaths.”

Wikipedia entry on Infant Mortality: Causes, Culture.

Why is this tolerance an affront to the modern? Why are experts allowed this obvious blindspot, why are they so disgusted by a people who have made peace with their subjection to both life and death, not just life untrammelled.

Especially when those self same experts are happy to endorse euthanasia and assisted suicide for those who are otherwise healthy, at face value it is difficult not to presume ill and dysgenic motives of such actors. For a more detailed look at recent developments in euthanasia one can view our stream on the Canadian experience:

It is clear as well that many of the policy, and technology developments, designed to curb infant mortality are making people more fragile. When history rears its head again, can we be sure that such fragile people will survive?

Towards a Society Without Death

A people more comfortable with death, who are in visible and physical proximity to its processes are frankly more healthy and better prepared for the realities of the human experience. We know the sort, or maybe we are the sort, who experienced family death at a young age, or worked in close proximity to livestock and can see the importance of death as much as life. I find these people, when the positive aspects of death have been reinforced in them, are more circumspect and more patient with the many stresses of everyday living. We cannot even begin to calculate the effects on wider society that have come from parents hiding death from their young, from people being stripped from the cycles of the land, it should be of no surprise then that today we are terrified of death. It is rather easy to be terrified of something you almost never see.

Furthermore it becomes an obvious fact that such people, terrified of death, would allow governments to suspend funerals.The day you are born, the day you are wed, the day you witness new life being brought into the world, and the day you die. These are the most important events in an individual's life, to have a community with which to celebrate each of these moments is all that most people could ever ask for. Even in recent times we have attached great ceremony to the death of important people, but we refuse to extend the same favour to ourselves. The average person today feels righteous in requesting a “quiet affair”, that they don’t want too much fuss about it all, that it must be private, solemn, and understated. This would all be an affront to the man of the past, the veneration of death within a community is not an individual decision. Death should be, and always was, a collective affair. The modern man falls always before the greatest hubris, feeling that he is within his rights to claim complete ownership of himself, this is of course a nonsense only educated moderns could believe. No honour, no glory, no self-sacrifice to be taken on by the man who owns himself. A people who can’t die for something, deserve very little to live for.

Death, like all the aspects of life, must be rationalised. It must be understood to such an extent that we may solve death itself. As if death were little else than a mathematics problem. Life must go on in the mind of the progressive, technology if it is to mean anything to us, must make us immortal. It’s utopian and frankly infantile—however ultimately–it is a driver of much human activity. One can of course appreciate historical epics where an individual strives for immortality, but this typically comes with the caveat of immortality for the purpose of overcoming a vast enemy or rescuing a loved one. So too did the ancients, with their intuitive grasp of the tragic vision, generally apply some catch or twist to immortality. They demonstrated something that should today all be too plain, that merely living is toil.

On the odd occasion I get critiqued for smoking or drinking and should, according to those wiser than me, consider the effect these activities will have on later life. Later life today is hell, can we really expect people to do away with a life of joy, of conversation, of revelling, so that they could swap a youth of experience for an old age of hospital wards and bed pans?

As demonstrated by many a fiction, even in recent years, living forever isn’t typically all it’s cracked up to be.Typically coming at the expense of the very things that make life worth living. Even giving technology all its merits it cannot make a decrepit, artificially extended, and stationary old age meaningful, or even bearable for that matter. Some may suggest that euthanasia programs are a way to mitigate this, a rare and fleeting bit of sympathy from the experts. Personally I doubt it, no manner or number of well meaning technologists can do away with the inevitable end point of their own world view. Man must conquer everything in his path through the methods of science, death being no exception.

A high point of our striving to conquer death, must be as stated towards the start of this piece, the complete curtailing of child mortality for even the most extreme conditions and diseases. Every few years or so we have another UK wide sob story about a terminally ill child or toddler, who the NHS or some other body has said little else can be done for. We the viewer then become the witness to a weeks long drama as doctors, lawyers, surgeons, even the parents of the child in some cases, give their in depth view on whether this year’s sick kid can be rightfully taken to another country for experimental surgery. A full study of these stories and the narrative aspects they play up to would be of interest. Here I only wish to focus on one main element, that once again this phenomenon plays directly into our corrupted and rationalised sense of justice. As the masters of our own destiny, as beings who have rationalised within ourselves a deep sense of justice, we feel it is all our collective duty to save that one child who was deemed beyond saving. In one sense it's almost commendable, if projecting empathy at the TV weren’t so easy and frankly manipulative of our own psyches, to think of wanting the best for someone who is publicly deemed misfortunate. 

“The country which first recognizes its responsibilities to the child,” S. W. Newmayer wrote in 1911, “will receive the recognition of the world as being the foremost civilized nation.”

The Early History of the Infant Mortality Rate in America: “A Reflection Upon the Past and a Prophecy of the Future,” Jeffrey P. Brosco, MD

This material sense of justice, as discussed above, clouds any proper and holistic understanding of death. Whilst it may not be easy to consider, it could be said that this view of justice is shallow, that empathy for the sick child is easy. That to look past one isolated incident, which can be difficult when it's an hourly report featured in 24/7 news, and see all events, all life and all death, as part of a dynamic that exists over and above our simple ideas of justice. It is no simple set of scales to be balanced, but a flux which we should all feel blessed to interact with for better or worse. Only in this all encompassing view can one see the wider injustice of brutalising a society and its foundational values for the material betterment of a group of people destined to die by some means, at some time. The needless extension of life is not a virtue, it is furthermore a major detrimental attack on human vitality as a whole.

Look At Me. Death is Real

Modern society will collapse, and history will return, it is but a matter of time. We must then ask ourselves, can the man of the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd century survive the return of history? Early eugenicist thinkers took much time to deliberate and mitigate the problems of overbreeding, today things are so far from then, the number of Western people capable of bringing healthy children into the world is dwindling into nothing. Modern society has stripped men and women of what they truly are, spiritually and biologically, there is no lack of uncertainty when it comes to the future of the sexless mass.

It is my presumption that when, not if, the modern world begins to truly collapse under its own weight in an ever accelerating manner, that many will not see the collapse through. Many, if not all, of the opportunist aliens who have arrived here in the last 50 years will likely look for opportunities elsewhere. So too will much of the metropolitan populations, seeking out the last vestiges of their civilisation in some far flung hovel, will spread to the wind unlikely to return to what they might sneeringly refer to as their homes. What will be left will in some part be the old, sick, and weary who can’t escape, and a strong band of natives who cannot bring themself to leave our great land. By love of folk and place, we might hope this remnant of what once was may even prepare and steel themselves for the moment of collapse. It is only this that will allow what we knew in The Before Time as Britain to thrive again.

It will be those, hard of flesh and even harder of will, who dare to look death in the face not in rejection, but in acceptance. These are the people who will allow our civilisation to carry on into a great new future, one of struggle, perseverance, and untouched beauty as we become one with the land again. The alien will return to the earth, as will the metropolitan, but only the hardened native will have his return celebrated and integrated into a vitalistic culture in touch with the greater cycles which man only fleetingly interacts with. Purged of its weak, unwilling, its foreign bodies, our people may once again rise to the very top of human civilisation. Not as a sprawling mass shoehorned into electrified domiciles, relying on the force of sheer quantity. No, it will be a society dripping in quality, brimming with world conquering potential.

Donate: https://ko-fi.com/scrumpmonkey

Our Telegram: https://t.me/EvScr123

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@scrumpmonkey