This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

NOTICE:
This Dark Age is now available in paperback on Amazon. The print version is MUCH cleaner than this online version, which is largely unedited and has fallen by the wayside as the project has grown. If you’ve appreciated my writing, please consider leaving a review on the relevant paperback volumes. The print edition also includes new sections (Military History, War Psychology, Dogmatic Theology).

Volume 1 | Volume 2 | Volume 3| Volume 4 | Volume 5 | Volume 6

Genesis of the modern period

We have said that there were four Ages and that ours is the last. We have said that this last age, the Dark Age or Kali Yuga, had its beginning at the Great Flood to which all peoples round the globe trace their origins. Further, we have said that within the Dark Age itself there are smaller divisions, and that the latest division lies near the Greek civilization which marks what we call the “historical period.” Very good—we are getting very close to man’s current location! But now we must dissect this “historical period” itself, for it is very clear that the contemporary man is of a very different character than his ancestor who lived in Greek or Rome. He thinks differently, feels differently, in many ways inversely, than his predecessor, whom we will call “traditional man.” We find that traditional man is in many ways as incomprehensible to the modern mind as Egypt is to the modern historian. And there again lies our key: we know that in times of profound shift a wall of incomprehensibility is erected, rendering the men on one side alien to those on the other. We’ve approximated the division between the Ages, but can we also find walls that divide this age, and the men who populate it, from one another, allowing us to perceive sub-divisions within historical times? More specifically, can we identify the moment at which traditional man died out and “modern man” was born?

For the Western world, the death of the traditional coincides with the demise of the medieval civilization as developed throughout the Middle Ages. The celebrated humanist movements known to history as the Renaissance (“rebirth”) and the Reformation were really nothing but manifestations of this death. Just as a lifeless corpse might expand and disperse into the ground through the process of putrefaction, so the decaying civilization may heave and display agitation, in a sort of mockery of life, even though it is deceased and dissolving into the earth. The false nature of the productions of the Renaissance are betrayed in the simple fact they are but imitations of the superficial characteristics of a period far superior and ancient—the Greek. Renaissance art is simple nostalgia, just as an old man speaks dreamingly of the days of his youth. After all, we would not call his daydreaming a “rebirth” just because the dreams were beautiful, would we?—No, we would take it instead as proof that little life was left in him and that, with little life to look forward to, he was trying to find some joy in a lost and distant past. The Reformation, on the other hand, resembled the decay of death in a much more obvious fashion. No one would deny that it worked upon the unity of the “body” which was Christendom in the same manner, slowly breaking it down into fragments until, as we are seeing today, there remains little more than the “molecule” of the individual. No body, no unity, only the constituent parts atomized to the greatest degree possible—“to dust” civilization has returned.

Share This