In order to understand what people mean by the decline of western civilization, you have to define what it is. You also have to understand how it arose.

Western civilization is comprised of basically three things: Christianity, in particular protestant christianity, as it fled Europe to escape from the purges of the Catholic Church; the Enlightenment, or progess based on science and reason; and the creation of universal literacy and a substantial middle class, replete with freedoms to speak openly, be physically and socially mobile, and to acquire and keep substantial amounts of property.

Therefore, the decline of western civilization is when these things have come under assault. And all of them came under full assault in America in the early 1800's. The Catholic Church encouraged mass immigration from Catholic countries to the United States in the early part of the century (and still are, by the way--whose behind the big push to erase the border with Mexico?), and the CC was also instrumental in creating the Civil War against the protestant South. The Pope actually endorsed the South and wanted to establish a monarchy there--to crush the protestantism in the south. There were French troops stationed in Mexico to invade the south when it was spent from the war. There were also British troops stationed in Canada to do the same to the North. But Russia, which took a hit from the French and British in the Crimean War, sent its fleet to New York and the west coast, and teh war ended too soon with the total surrender of the south. The monarchies of Europe almost did it. That's the real reason why Lincoln is a hero.

The Enlightenment was put under assault in the late 19th centruy with the rise of Rousseau and Marx--the assault on the rise of industrial society which created the middle class, and the back-to-nature nonsense that promises to return the populace to serfdom.

The rights and propserity of the middle class was put under assault by the formation of the large trusts and corporations which were formed prior to and just after the civil war. The corporations took a hit in the late 19th century, but in the 20th century, especially after WWII, that changed for the worse.

Of course, all these ideas come from the thinking class of Europe, where the old aristocracy including the Vatican) were trying to reverse the progress of human freedom, while conquering what would now be known as the third world.

The culture of stupidity that is deeply ingrained in the Chris Whites and jewish agnostics of the world began in Old Europe and will indeed result in a new form of fuedalism here and everywhere around the world. Its been a long time in the making, but they are putting the last touches on their victory. And its great to have "useful idiots" like comrade White and jewish agnostic to cheer on the collapse.

Everywhere you look, you will see the negation of biblical Christianity (as opposed to Catholicism, which I know well and grew up with), the enthronement of emotion and hedonism over reason, and the attack on prosperous industrial society and individial rights for earth worship and collective group rights. Who do you think is funding this? Who owns the media? Who runs the universities? Who funds the arts? The elite, mainly the european elite, and their american lackeys, that's who. There's your answer.

Posted by: BIOH on January 16, 2009 3:24 PM

"Nope. It is not uncivilized to call someone an idiot. "

it is you idiot!

"Well, he was a Western-educated lawyer... so he was an idiot to study from barbarians, given his stated opinion on the Western civilization, or lack thereof."

hehe idiot! he didnt START OFF thinking the west uncivilized. he ENDED UP thinking that.

"if Western civilization "would be a good idea," then who pray-tell is civilized? The people who burn widows, spit on untouchables, and smother infant girls? Glib, was Mr. Ghandi, but off-mark."

hehehe idiot!gandhi didnt call THOSE people civilized either. he just turned his back on every uncivilized barbarian, including those that wore spiff suits and dresses, lived in roman maoleums and performed the most unspeakably uncivilized deeds that you continue to see around you even to date.

"Two more data points about Ghandi"

hehehe idiot. are you actually laboring under the delusion that you are gathering evidence for your statements statistically correctly?

"he became an activist while visiting South Africa. Was he upset by the British' treatment of the Africans? Actually, no. He was offended tha the couldn't ride on a train with whites, but with "coloureds," whom he considered beneath him. That alone doesn't make him an idiot, but given his ideals, it does make him an idiot."

this must be the most idiotic of all your statements. I mean, listen to your incoherence here. Gandhi started at a place he could: at home.he tried to make his neighborhood better, and thus the world. the first thing he wanted changed was for HIS OWN hindu people to start cleaning their own toilets(in south africa) instead of having lower caste scavengers. the fucking social climber!

As far as the african populations, I think I'll take nelson mandela's word (and the african national congress' - a political party founded by Gandhi)over the idiocy spouted by you, thanks

"he went on hunger strikes to keep the Hindus and Muslims from going their separate ways, and sabotaged these efforts, leaving India with millions of Muslims within its borders. So in a way you can blame last December's Bombay massacre on Ghandi. "

wat? habla anglais. what exactly does this piece of incoherence mean? are you saying osama bin laden sent people to india to kill (hindus and muslims, more muslims than hindus) because there are muslims in India?

hehehe idiot.

" In the thirties, he suggested that if the Jews would just commit mass suicide, all the problems in Europe would go away. No kidding."

Posted by: Ramesh on January 16, 2009 6:30 PM

the other idiotic post: "In the thirties, he suggested that if the Jews would just commit mass suicide, all the problems in Europe would go away. No kidding.
Posted by: Bob Grier on January 16, 2009 1:35 PM"

this was Gandhi's actual idea, paraphrased by (the other idiot) Alexander solzenitzyn, when he accepted his nobel prize.

"Gandhi once said that if there was a choice between violence and cowardice, he'd pick violence anyday. There is no excuse for cowardice, which in its essence just results from serious attachment to oneself. However, that is NOT to say that courage implies violence.

While violence maybe better than passivity, retreat, and cowardice, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Non-violence comes from a space of power, strength and inner resolve that love will transform the anger of the oppressor. It is not to say that when someone hits you, you don't hit back. It is, rather, to say something much more powerful -- that when someone hits you, the strength of your love will shake the foundation of anger and negativity that resulted in the oppressor's action. "

but to understand this difference, you savages must first evolve.

which is why , like gandhi said, it's a good idea.

Posted by: Ramesh on January 16, 2009 6:38 PM

wasnt pretty but someone had to do it.

brown man's burden

Posted by: Ramesh on January 17, 2009 9:09 AM

It is important that we take up the brown man's burden indeed. Let us work to spread the caste system throughout the world.

And while we're at it, let's bring back suttee.

A toast to the brown man's burden! [Taking a big hot quaff of cow's urine: "The Cistern of Life"]

Posted by: Mr. Untouchable on January 17, 2009 9:46 AM

youll have more respect for your civilizational superiors once you become brown enough to share it...or at least your nose is.

;)

Posted by: Ramesh on January 17, 2009 2:07 PM

It might be interesting for Donald to drop back in to give us his definition for Western Civilization, especially given that some of the comments offer definitions that would surely be considered suspect by many, if not most, Western Civilization scholars. And I find it interesting that the token liberals around here seem to be arguing that Western Civilization is quite healthy, thank you very much, while the comments of those who lean right seemingly find it in decline.

Posted by: Chris White on January 17, 2009 2:55 PM

If I wish to apply for membership in one of the forward castes, will you have me? I fear that no amount of brown-nosing will bring that about.

Posted by: Mr. Untouchable on January 17, 2009 7:44 PM

almost everyone in the / canada know what cow uine astes like...coors light.

Posted by: Ramesh on January 17, 2009 9:11 PM

On the "decline of the west":

1. I think the demonstrable demographic suicide of the founding peoples of the West must indicate something significant.

2. The Great Sixties Cultural Revolution (1965-70 in the US, somewhat different dates for other locations) initiated a whole series of profound changes in, especially, what became the last stronghold of Western self-confidence (the US) following the self-immolation of the European homeland as a result of the two World Wars. For example, just watch Youtube footage of the 1963 March on Washington and marvel at the utter normality of those speaking, and in attendance-with the exception, I guess, of Bob Dylan. It is clear that they want assimilation into Christian middle-class(white) America. I'm sure a lot of them had (subdued) hatred for white America-but not the contempt that latter became common. Also compare the sweet sounds of Motown to the cynical aggressiveness of Rap.

3. The US: in the long run deficits matter.

4. The rise of PC/Multiculuralist dogma in the '90's signals a further loss of confidence.

Posted by: icr on January 17, 2009 10:38 PM

Thoughts on the dominant ideology of today's West:
http://antimisandry.com/harrys-corner/peter-hitchens-political-correctness-409.html
Please can we stop using the stupid expression "political correctness gone mad" . First, political correctness is a stern, fierce movement which is completely sane and sets out deliberately to stop us from saying - and thinking - various things. It is not a joke, nor is it out of control. It is deliberate, purposeful and serious. Those who enforce it plan to change the world and they will succeed for as long as we treat PC as a laugh, or as some sort of batty bureaucratic mix-up which will go away in the end.
-Peter Hitchens

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/3544.html
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
-Theodore Dalrymple

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried35.html
(...)
I refuse to treat political correctness as an academic eccentricity and present it instead as a tool of managerial control. Universities are not the only context in which pc and its accompanying mantra about diversity have taken over. Churches, corporations, and the media push the same partylines, but without government interventions we would not be worrying about the legal consequences of not paying sufficient respect to state-designated victims. This fact is so obvious that one has to speculate on the reasons it is ignored – particularly on what today passes for the Right.
-Paul Gottfried
(...)

Posted by: icr on January 17, 2009 10:48 PM

The Enlightenment, due to all the revolutions, social and political, that sprang from it - the American and French Revolutions; the rise of humanism, liberalism, and Marxism; the decline of the position of the Church in society, and the subsequent decline of the Faith as a whole; the end of aristocracy and the rise of the nouveau riche and the managerial class, etc.

Posted by: anon on January 18, 2009 8:35 AM

That anyone can view Western Civilization as peaking in the period before the Enlightenment is fascinating. I for one have no longing for the lost opportunity to live a short brutal life as an illiterate, ill fed, unhealthy serf serving the interests and whims of petty tyrants who claim without question that God and heredity gives them the right to my very being. This is exactly the sort of life nearly all of us, absent the Enlightenment, American and French Revolutions, humanism, liberalism, etc. would no doubt find as our lot. To think that the pre-Enlightenment era was the peak of Western Civilization one must be a masochistic fool or else believe themselves to be of ancient noble lineage and thus exempt from the short brutal lives the vast majority lived in that period.

Posted by: Chris White on January 18, 2009 11:12 AM

OK, Chris, I'll give you a break.

You know what's really great about this American democracy built by white men? The democratic and economic principles created and expanded by those white men put in place a society that has ultimately been able to extend the full benefits of citizenship to everybody, including your beloved gays, women and blacks.

White, western society is the only society that has managed to develop in this way. That is the genius of the English legal system and the American democratic system... the two great political inventions of white men.

White men don't need to hang their heads in shame. We didn't enslave the world. We liberated the world with our ideas, our inventions, our laws and our political systems. Not to mention our blood and sacrifice.

White men are the inventors of the great "liberation" that you so admire.

I think that what most of us are saying here is: Why turn white men into villains now that the fruits of the great emancipatory efforts of white men are ripening? That is madness. We are, I believe, on the precipice of the destruction of Western Civ if we continue down this road. The true genius of white men is that we constructed a political system that, within 200 years, abolished slavery, emancipated women and led to the election of a black man as president.

We white men have done a great job. What's needed now is recognition of our forefathers amazing accomplishments, not condemnation of white men. We're the heroes of this story.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on January 18, 2009 2:25 PM

If only that idiot Gandhi could take part in this discussion.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on January 18, 2009 6:54 PM

People are comfortable referring to figures like Gandhi and Mandela. You can name an orphanage or a cricket trophy after guys like that.

However, post-colonial and third-world figures who left things in better shape than might be expected...that would make a list even I'd have trouble looking at it. Just try it:

Ataturk
Lee Kuan Yew
King Hussein
Pinochet
Kenyatta
Suharto
Mahathir

Some marginal choices there, I know. But it makes you think. Only their mothers could love most of 'em. I can admit to a grim admiration for the first three mentioned above. After that...

Perhaps the key to solid achievement in the developing (or whatever-you're-supposed-to-call-it-now) world is to follow a firm policy of disappointing all the luvvies, all the clever people. And even when you're fulminating against the capitalist West...make like the capitalist West.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on January 18, 2009 9:44 PM

ST - As one of those arguing that the decline of Western Civilization will be in the future because so far it seems to be moving forward just fine, I'm certainly not calling for white men to hang their heads in shame, far from it. Where we seem to part company is over whether white men have exclusively brought about all of Western Civilization's advancements and glories. Also, perhaps, whether white men are intrinsically superior beings. Western Civilization is not for me synonymous with white men.

To recognize, applaud, and adopt the good to be found in Asian art, African music, or women's folk wisdom is not to denigrate or attack white men. Just as offering criticism of global corporate capitalism, the leadership of which tends to be dominated by white men, is not the same as rejecting either Western Civilization or white men as a whole.

My default position is that any and all cultures have strengths and weaknesses, glories and shames. I see one of the many great strengths of Western Civilization being its ability to embrace and absorb new ideas. Those new ideas may come from outside as well as inside the culture. Take, for example, the way early Western Civilization recognized and adopted the Arabic number system and the mathematical language that system enabled. I therefore count it as a positive sign of the continued climb of Western Civilization that it has extended its scope far beyond the limits of Europe or white men to so many others.

Posted by: Chris White on January 19, 2009 10:04 AM

'If only that idiot Gandhi could take part in this discussion.
Posted by: Sister Wolf on January 18, 2009 6:54 PM""

He would have said t donald pettiger

"I know a way for you to get out of yur hell." (paraph..gandhi the fim.)

Posted by: Ramesh on January 19, 2009 10:34 AM

Chirs: "I therefore count it as a positive sign of the continued climb of Western Civilization that it has extended its scope far beyond the limits of Europe or white men to so many others."

A fair point, but we should expect that they will transform it into something entirely different, to turn it to their own uses. As we're seeing now in India and China.

None of this means that Western Culture is thriving. Thriving things are generative, and there's none of that happening now. When the west rediscovered it's past in the Renaissance, you wouldn't have said it meant Greco-Roman culture was thriving. It made for something new.

Likewise the dispersion of western ideas in the present time. The seed isn't spread until the fruit ripens and is eaten - and by that time it's dead.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on January 19, 2009 1:44 PM

Todd, I think that's true, but is Western Civ, or any Civ, a static entity? I think some have been and that has been their downfall. Western Civ has historically been adaptable and malleable, while still remaining somewhat recognizable through the ages. I believe that is why it has survived. Is the current Western Civ the exact same as it was during the Renaissance, or in the 19th century, etc? No. Will it be the same in the 21st as it was in the 20th? I don't think so, although it won't be lost either. And in fact, I believe it will become more dominant. Whose culture (both high and low) do developing countries look to? Western, and particularly, American. And with the distribution of information becoming more and more accessible and widespread, that will only increase, I believe. Of course, those countries put their own spin on it and spit it back out as something slightly different (I'm thinking Japan as the primary example) wherein we in the West re-consume it. It's an established process that a) cannot be stopped and b) will only increase as technology to distribute and consume media advances.

Posted by: JV on January 19, 2009 5:03 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?