Destruction is the process by which a thing goes from being actual, and thus real, to not being actual, and to having been actual. The thing that is destroyed ceases to be real, but the act of destruction itself is real and as such has a type and many subtypes.
Some destruction you can avoid. The clever hedonists’ plan is to stay away from trouble. If trouble comes to you, you move out of its way. Make it easier by not encumbering yourself with binding ties. The epicurean gods are gods because they are fortunate to exist in quiet regions of the world. Aim for that.
Some destruction you just have to absorb. The shots you see coming and accept are easier to take. Do they make you stronger? Do they make you more learned, more experienced? It depends. The stoicist sees them as necessary evils. Good things may require bad things to happen before they can happen. This doesn’t change the fact that these bad things are bad and may leave you more fragile, perhaps permanently.
The retrospective effect of goodness adds a revealed positive meaning to something that is at first purely negative. Destruction may in this manner acquire a creative finality. The devil’s intent is evil, but his actions end up being good.
There is order in destruction. Living cells have entire protocols that handle how they wipe themselves out.
The cause of an act of non-natural destruction can be internal or external. Is the cause of destruction internal or external when individuals or nations are destroyed? Is it suicide, or murder? Another name for the collective murder of a people or nation is genocide.
For healthy souls, suicide is mysterious in a way murder isn’t. Individual suicide may be viewed as wrong, yet it may carry a person’s dignity. Collective suicide by non-reproduction by prosperous nations is generally viewed as strange and contemptible. Individual suicide implies unpleasantness, whereas collective suicide is pleasant in the short term. Collective survival is an effort, is a duty, is unpleasant. At least, so it seems to decadent nations.
Over-civilized non-reproducers try not to think about it ; they distract themselves with thoughts that rationalize their non-reproduction. Philosophers urge us not to judge them too severely, because all lives are an expression of necessity. “Could they not have…?”, we ask out of resentment. Because our will is no substitute for the will of others, only “could I not have…?” is of any actual individual use.
As to what is really going on, it is hard to come to definite conclusions now about things that will only reveal themselves in time.
That said, I believe that the current process of Western destruction is closer to an act of suicide than to an act of genocide.
I provide a few reasons in what follows.
One of the distinguishing marks of suicide is that suicide opens up possibilities. To be long-lasting is a design constraint. Living in the present, unconstrained by the duties owed to the future, increases the number of things that can be done. The branch that supports the man with the saw can thus be sawn off. “There is no future”: you are now free to be excessive, impious, extravagant, transgressive, sinful, wasteful. Note the similarity with: “There is no God. Everything is permitted.” (Dostoevsky).
In the West, it is the institution of mariage that most unambiguously exhibits this mark. Traditional mariage is uniform, indissoluble, lifelong, and children-oriented. Today’s mariages are diverse and reflect the desires and whims of present-oriented individuals. Gay mariage is just the tip of it.
Genocide is an act of murder, both of the body and of the soul of a people. The term fits less well when it is essentially the soul that is attacked.
If a pleasurable trap kills its victim, it’s still murder. But if the victim can see the trap? If the victim actively and voluntarily participated in the construction of the trap?
Genocide by suicide is a rather unreliable method: what if the genos refuses? What if people just want to have children and be traditional? What if people pass the fitness test?
Victims of genocide see and cannot trick themselves into not seeing the physically destructive act they are the victims of.
On the other hand, the present destruction of civilization in Europe is also a business, a policy and a religion. It is enforced, and it is forced upon those who resist it.
Mostly though, tradition is simply marginalized, because progressives believe that all traditions are ultimately irrelevant.
Only individuals pass the fitness test. They provide a basis, but only a basis, to regrow a people.
The above reasons are not categorical. Some objections may briefly be considered.
Is it a mark of courageous realism to reject the suicide explanation, and to maintain that the cause of destruction is external, making the act of destruction an act of genocidal murder?
For one, it depends on the character of the objector. Such a belief can serve a healthy purpose by increasing willpower and focus. The trap loses its appeal: it bears the mark of a concrete, incarnate, hated enemy. Intellectuals who refuse this simplification might instinctively be viewed as weak-willed.
I wrote above that it is the soul that is essentially being attacked. But there are physical components to the destruction of the West: mass abortion and mass immigration, among others.
Renaud Camus forged a term that perhaps fits best the current stage of Western self-destruction: the Great Replacement.
Others will deny the act of destruction itself, because they refuse to recognize the reality of what is being destroyed. Specifically, some people believe nations aren’t real, or that there is no such thing as a European identity. These people suppress something inside of themselves. Or they didn’t have it in the first place. They tune out of tradition. The intensity of the present, of the local stimuli and passions, calls strongly to them, like a god. The present is their god, the past and future are their sacrificial offerings. They must consume, must achieve a maximum of satisfaction, now. They compare, they maximize religiously.
Nature, or Gnon, in the end, favors stoicism, because the stoicist will reproduce, if given the chance, whereas the epicurean will not.
Is it not rather easy to see how progressivism could be made irrelevant within a single generation?