There was a time – and being born in 1959, I am old enough to remember it – when the idea of Civilization needed no explanation or defense. Everybody knew what it meant. Civilization was tied to another term, now likewise mocked, and that term is Progress.
Progress was the idea that society was moving forward, upward, toward higher goals – better medicine, faster transportation, the brutality of hard labor replaced by stronger, then smarter machines; abundant energy, increased wealth and leisure: all of these things were greatly desired, and society was proud to provide them, proud to show them off in World Fairs and Expos and in the mythology of the movies.
Now “progress” and “civilization” are ironic terms, in sneer quotes, muttered with that pathetic, bored tone of cynical nihilism started by the narcissistic brats that I have been ten years behind for my entire life. Today, I try to exercise and watch my weight only so that I may live long enough to see the last of these radical hippies die in their sleep.
This is why Bill Whittle is one of my favourite reads. Read on. It’s all you’re getting today, because it’s enough.
Kate and fellow travellers
Why no attention to the massacre in Qana today? Is this just another example of acceptable collateral damage?
First off John, this isn’t exactly the thread for it. Second if you go to the 27th you’ll see Kate is otherwise engaged, and also that is the open thread. See you there?
hi
i just read that my taxes, my money was given to some people in goverment, where is my tax reduction? i’m conservative and i’m pissed off.
John Daly:
Anyone who takes the lyrics of John Lennon’s “Imagine” seriously shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Dear “John Daly”:
Anyone who takes the lyrics of “Imagine” seriously shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Sorry, Kate, John and others.
My double posting there was due entirely to personal incompetence…
Ural,
sorry I did not check back last night, but I got involved in other matters, incl. the news (MSM yet!)
“News or propaganda?” The news is what happens, propaganda is how this is bent (or spun) to suit a particular purpose. For instance, conservatives and neo-cons are convinced that there is an MSM propaganda conspiracy against them. This would be news to me (if proved,) but great conservative/neo-con propaganda in any case, since it shifts responsibility for prior (and any future) lack of success to others.
Actually, propaganda should be anathema to both liberals and conservatives. Both profess freedom and democracy, or government with the informed consent of the governed. How can that consent be informed if is it deliberately dis- or misinformed through propaganda? Are we really down to “may the most effective propaganda win?”
new kid, lookout – the reason that I think western civilization won’t ‘fall’ is because it works. I’ll try to briefly explain.
Roman and Greek civilization, i.e., ideological principles of truth, of social order, of justice, of man’s role, etc, didn’t fall; they transformed into western civilization.
The Roman political, the Greek political domains fell – but that was because the population had become too large for those particular political systems to organize. The Greek ‘polis’ could handle about 5,000 people; the Roman imperial system had stretched too far to manage in a centralist manner.
But the ideology – as espoused by Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and others – remained firmly developed and moved to emerge as the basic infrastructure of the western ideological structure, which could, politically, organize a larger population. This is post-reformation, when the political structure that emerged, based on the ideological principles of Roman and Greek thought, and the reformed religious principles in Christian thought – enabled a society that privileged questions, reason, analysis, and enabled innovative technologies to be developed to support larger and larger populations.
This is a civilization, therefore, that enables large populations and which attempts to ‘manipulate’ the env’t to provide food, water, housing, to control disease and enable people to live within reasonably healthy lives.
In comparison, the Islamic ideology cannot enable large populations. The fact that they NOW have large populations is due only to their oil-ability to purchase the technological results of western civilization. The Islamic ideology is based only – I’ll repeat that – ONLY on fiction. Not facts. It is not interested in facts and indeed, insists that its population reject facts. Only fictions are of importance and they must be maintained in the face of all factual evidence that denies those fictions.
So- Islamic ideology cannot become supreme in the world, because the global population is too large to be supported by such an ideology – an ideology that is totally and completely unable to act within science. Islamic ideology is not a scientific ideology.
Equally, Islamic tribalism cannot politically, govern a global population of 6 billion. Tribalism, which is a no-change, no growth, kin-based political system, can only operate within smaller populations. It falls apart within million-size populations because it cannot control dissent except by force.
So- the reason I maintain that western civilization, aka the scientific paradigm based on reason and evidence, WILL survive, is because it is the only system that can: nurture a global population in the multi-millions.
Just assume that it falls. The end of reason, the end of questions, the end of individual freedom, the end of dissent. The introduction of a perspective based only on fiction. No facts.
It can’t happen- there are too many people to control and keep ‘away from facts’ and ‘focused on fiction’. Nazi Germany and Communism both tried to force massive populations into fictional worlds. Both failed. A fiction-based society can only work if the population is small, small…and requires no innovation, no new technologies.
Our world is always requiring innovations. Biologically, new diseases will always emerge, the climate has changed since the planet was formed and will continue that way; new tactics of interaction with the env’t will always be required..and so on. If you set up a world society that has NO ability to live within a factual world and can only live within a Fictional world – then, we’ll see massive epidemics and diseases to rival any Black Plague, as the world population would have to reduce itself by about 5 billion, in order to reduce pressures to innovate.
Am I making any sense?
Another loose end from last night. JR at 09:36 PM drew attention to R.J. Rummel’s “Death By Government.” Found an electronic copy readily available at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Just to continue with my speculations about why western civilization, aka the scientific method of individual questions, exploration, based on reason and facts – will continue – what we are now seeing in the world is a sociopolitical change.
We are moving, globally, from an era of separate and sovereign nation-states to what I refer to as a complex-adaptive network of ‘locally operative networked systems’, where a sovereign nation is locally governed but operationally networked with other ‘locally governed systems’.
To achieve this, the deep asymmetries between the various areas of the globe must be reduced. The world must operate more homogeneously in many areas, while retaining local differences. (Both are required).
But, the basic general operating structure of the globe must be homogeneous. All must operate within a civic political mode, ie, democracy. That’s the basic requirement. And, all must have an industrial economy. Those two- are the basics.
At the moment, the world is crackling under the tensions produced because some areas of the world are too, politically, different. That would be OK if those areas chose to remain isolate and ‘live on their own islands’. The problem is – they want ‘in’ with the western world. But, they refuse that basic infrastructure of democracy and industrialism. That’s the tribal dictatorships of the ME and in Africa.
The ME is, in my view, just at the cusp of moving out of tribalism. It is fighting very hard to maintain it – but – I think the ‘tide has turned’. But, it’s an enormous fight, by both sides – the ME and the West.
China and India are moving out of their former ways. China was both tribal and peasant. It is now industrial and capitalist; democracy will follow. India may be democratic in part, but, it still is too strongly a peasant economy and must become more industrial.
Africa – is still a mess and reveals what would happen when massive populations refuse to enable democracy and industrialism. I think Zimbabwe is an example of this rejection of both democracy and industrialism. The people are starving and dying of disease.
N. Korea is an example of the rejection of democracy. The people are starving.
The West is the only civilization that has developed an ideology that enables progress, growth; therefore, it is the only civilization that can sustain massive populations in the world. There is NO OTHER mode that can do this. That’s why it will survive – because it has to.
Tom Penn:
Vis a vis your comment that you don’t detect a “shout down [on this blog] denying that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the western world…” With all due respect, you have not been blogging here for very long…at least that’s my perception.
How many comments on this thread did it take for someone to bring up the central role of Judeo-Christian principles in the shaping of the Western world–and the attack that they are now under? Let me count…
62 posts!!
That’s strange, isn’t it, given that Judeo-Christian principles’ being concertedly and consistently under attack by Lefties in our educational and judicial systems, the MSM and the entertainment industries have contributed big-time to threats to the Web of Trust/Western civilization that Bill Whittle describes in his essay?
It’s heartening to see that for you, the centrality of Judeo-Christian principles in the establishment and maintenance of Western democracies is “really kind of a ‘no duh’…”–it is from mine, too–but sadly it isn’t a universally held perspective in the West, even on the part of those who oppose the direction “the Left” is taking us in.
Religion has all but been declared a no-go area in the public square. As an example: I’m still awaiting ET’s answer to my non-rhetorical question at the end of my last post:
What is it that will keep Western civilization from going the way of all of the other civilizations?
As lookout puts it, a “blind spot” for sure. It’s often the blind spots that do us in.
While you were posting your last comment, ET, I was writing mine.
Can I assuem that this comment by you–“The West is the only civilization that has developed an ideology that enables progress, growth; therefore, it is the only civilization that can sustain massive populations in the world. There is NO OTHER mode that can do this. That’s why it will survive – because it has to” is your answer to my just-posted question?
If this is your answer, then I can’t help but be disappointed. Your usual deference to impeccable logic has failed you here. Because something “has to” survive because “NO OTHER mode”/individual/group can perform a function, it will, ipso facto, survive?
I could equally say that because a baby needs his/her mother, even though she’s doing drugs, is drinking too heavily, neglects her child, etc., she nevertheless “has to” survive in order to take care of her child. I’m clear that, rightly, you would accuse me of a circular argument.
But this is wishful thinking, not based on facts. If Western civilization insists on cutting itself off from the root of its growth and progress–which, I am suggesting, is the Judeo-Christian roots of its very successful, until now, judicial and educational systems, the envy of the world, which is why the immigration patterns for hundreds of years are from non-democracies/theocracies to countries whose modi operandi are based on J-C principles–it is entirely possible for our Western civilization to collapse.
I don’t WANT this to happen. I am fighting it with all my might. But just because I don’t want it to happen doesn’t meant that it won’t.
Great discussion!
“Kick it’s Ass” is where Canada seems to fall down. Socialism has killed our confidence and replaced it with fear.
Trudeau was an idiot!
Tom, thanks for your response. I always appreciate your posts.
You say, “I don’t think it’s particularly fair to tell others what they need to be talking about.”
I hear you. Obviously, none of us likes to have our views prescribed by someone else. Fair enough. I guess my quibble is that certain views, clearly stated and quite verifiable, seem to be completely ignored here over and over. Strange, to me, because the points I sometimes make about the Judeo-Christian foundation of much that is good in our culture and which many of us here lament the loss of, are directly related to the topics of religion and education.
It seems to me that discussing Western Civilization and its decline in a religous and educational vacuum is like trying to play basketball with no rules and no ball. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, then it seems to me that all aspects need to be considered.
You also say, “I really don’t see a big shout down denying that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the western world — that’s really kind of a “no duh” from my perspective.” I appreciate the “no-duh” part with which I’m obviously in total agreement! And I’d agree that there’s no big shout down. What there does seem to be, however, is a kind of shunning: At least, that’s what it feels like. Imagine being at a dinner party where an important discussion is going on and one’s pertinent, carefully stated, and, as I said, verifiable remarks are ignored virtually every time. The silence is every bit as potent as a shout down.
My thesis is quite simple (and a direct response to Bill Whittle’s article):
1) The unparallelled good of Western Civilization (Bill Whittle’s thesis)–which is now under direct and sustained attack by an implacable enemy–is the direct descendent of the Judeo-Christian dispensation. (You seem to agree. new kid does. Anybody else? The silence seems to suggest otherwise.)
2) The West’s deliberate rejection of its spiritual roots for emotionalism, moral relativism, and phony equality have seriously weakened it. An even greater enemy than the Islamic terrorists, I believe, is our internal weakness and decadence. [The Islamists are quite right on that score.] The West seems to have a case of the Stockholm Syndrome, when we seem to have more pity for our sworn enemies (see MSM) than we do for ourselves and our children! (Very unhappy ending coming up: How about good-bye Western Civilzation?)
It seems to me that the West is now like an orphan, cut off from the riches and nourishment of its past. (Bill Whittle says so but completely ignores the massive shoulders of Judeo-Christianity on which Western Civilization rests: big hole in his doughnut!) The huge wreck of the public education system is an “outward and visible sign” of the decadence of the West and, because our schools have a key role in the formation of the next generation, what’s happening there is of vital importance. The fact that we’re turning out a critical mass of entitled “surrender monkeys” rather than responsible citizens “should”–there’s that word!–be a matter of concern.
Of surprise and concern to me is that both Bill Whittle and, it seems, most regulars here, are only willing to have half a discussion on the topic of Western Civilization and its survival. WHY IS THIS? (I have my theories.)
I think we all deserve better. Let’s open up the discussion: If people disagree, that’s fine. That’s what debate’s about: parry and counter parry. What I don’t appreciate is responding to a parry and then being dropped. Out of courtesy and respect, when we’re involved in a discussion, I believe we owe each other a reasoned response. (As we all know, the trolls are notorious for bad manners: They make all kinds of provocative comments and put-downs and then run away.)
The opportunity to discuss topics of vital concern to all of us with others who care about the same things is the main draw of sda. Visiting this site is always one of the highlights of my day. Thanks, Kate, and everyone, have a good day.
P.S. Tom, the Sandmonkey link is hilarious. Thanks. And I altogether agree re who the “religious nutters” really are.
Many thanks, ET, for your thoughtful respose, even though I don’t entirely agree with your analysis!
You say, “So- the reason I maintain that western civilization, aka the scientific paradigm based on reason and evidence, WILL survive, is because it is the only system that can: nurture a global population in the multi-millions.” In a reasoanable world, so far, so good.
However, our Islamofascist enemies care not a whit for any of this–as you’ve so ably demonstrated many times. What happens if they wipe out the infrastructures of the West and most of us, a definite possibility? Forget collateral damage: One of their main goals is to wipe us out! So, if their nefarious plan for us is successful, Western Civilization will, indeed, disappear–at least for the time being. (Maybe a future Renaissance would reverse that.)
As the West seems to have lost the moral and political will to fight for its life–see my earlier post–I believe that Western Civilization, already very weak internally, is in very big trouble.
Seems to me that Western Civilization will atrophy because of apathy and the fear of ‘offending others’.
“Suppose they gave a civilization, and nobody came”……..that sorta thing.
new kid, lookout –
Yes, I agree that, on the surface and perhaps more deeply, my argument that western civilization must surive ‘just because it must’ is a circular, Kipling Just So argument. In other words, useless as an argument. However, I arrive at this conclusion from, I hope, deeper principles – which are based on energy dynamics.
First – let me say, with reference to Judeo-Christian – I’m an atheist, so, I’m not involved in the notion of a metaphysical agent, but, I strongly believe that reason and logic can provide sound moral principles.
So, with reference to lookout’s points of:
1) I consider that western civilization is derived from Greek and Roman principles of reason, the role of man as scientist and explorer, the focus on facts rather than fiction, the role of government. The reformation phase of Christianity added to this basic infrastructure, a role of temperance, collaboration ie, it was in particular, a non-kin based ideology (Islam is kin-based)and therefore, permits all people to be ‘members of the society.
Those are the TWO basic zones of western civilization. The Greek/Roman influence which brought reason, facticity and logic, and a civic mode of government and the Christian influence which brought the end of tribalism within a society and a focus on ‘humanity’ rather than ‘kin’.
So- this is the set-up for western civilization.
2)Postmodernism, or relativism, or a focus on fiction and a rejection of facts is the home-base of a large number of people, but not all.
My point in this, is that we cannot expect ALL people to operate by the principles noted above:
reason and facticity; and the acceptance of all as members of a common humanity.
I’d say that we’ll probably get a fluctuating proportion of those who prefer the fictional world to the factual. So, they will remain in supersition, in a peasant mentality, in a postmodern mentality. There’s no difference among these mentalities!
At the moment, in the social sciences and humanities, these are dominant in our universities. They can never make any headway in science, of course.
They are half in evidence in our political realm – where the fictional and the factual will always exist. So, the fictional parties in Canada are the socialist ones: the Liberals, NDP, Bloc. The only factual one is the CPC.
Second – I’ll try to explain my quite obviously useless circular argument..that western civilization will survive because it will survive.
I first consider the facts. (1) The world’s enormous population which requires constant support of food, water, housing, medicine. These are only possible within an industrial economy. A peasant or non-industrial economy cannot support this size of population.
(2) The industrial economy can only operate within an ideology that privileges the individual. The individual is, as ‘not part of the mass of jello’..unique. Open to questions, and wondering WHY. (Every three year old’s favourite word..apart from ‘NO’).
So, an industrial economy requires individualism, because it requires constant adaptive reactions to the new problems emerging in the env’t. New diseases, new requirements for housing, water, food, transportation, communication, organization.
In order to develop these new technologies, the individual must live within a world of FACTS. Not Fictions.
Therefore, the individual must be encouraged to use objective observation, logic, reason, evidence, experiment. And, also, to have within him, the emotion of HOPE for a Better World that is CHANGED.
Note – the Islamic world, based on FICTIONS, not facts, also hopes for a Better world, but it is an UNCHANGED world – a world ‘as it was 1500 years ago, a Purity of Origin. The Islamic world rejects the current world, rejects progress, and wants to go back-in-time.
This focus on the individual as someone who invents, who helps all people (not just his family) and who uses reason, questions..is the basis of western civilization.
It arose because increased populations require innovative, rapid-response adaptive tactics, in the world.
Back to that world population of 6 billion and rising to 9 billion. There is no method of sustaining that population except by a socioeconomic and political organization that enables rapid responses to provide ‘best solutions’ to the environmental and population pressures of this population. The only socioeconomic and political method that works as a rapid response complex adaptive system..is western civilization.
IF this civilization were to disappear, then, the global population could not be sustained. Absolutely impossible. It would have to drop to pre-industrial levels, to at least one billion.
A drop of 5 billion!
That would then mean, the end of industrialism, which could not be sustained with such a small global population. You’d be back to peasant agriculture.
And, back to tribalism; and back to fiction rather than fact.
Could it happen? Well, anything is theoretically possible, but pragmatically, I very much doubt that ‘history goes backwards’. So, you can’t dissipate that size population and that massive amount of knowledge into thin air.
A complex organism doesn’t reduce to a simple organism. Our world is complex, in its capacities to organize energy (which includes people)…and so, I don’t think that it can ‘go backwards’ to a planet without industrialism, and with a vastly reduced population.
Therefore, western civilization won’t disappear.
I have to concur with the secular humanists like ET and Vitruvius here who have so brilliantly defended the status quo: life is good, our civilization is the best, western civilization is good and clearly on the right path, and Bush is a great president. There is great reason for optimism, once we deal with our biggest threat: Islamofascism.
As an objectivist, of course, I believe in the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his…
Bitch paint my toenails.
Yes dear.
by the way, lookout, with your reference to the Islamic mode ‘taking over the world’ – my point is that this is impossible.
I admit they are certainly trying, but, pragmatically, it is impossible.
The reason is, that the Islamic ideology is both non-industrial and non-collaborative. By the latter, I mean that it is purely kin-based; it is tribe-based. It considers other peoples as ‘dhimmi’. The Christian religion, after the reformation, was/is a humanist religion in that it considers all human beings as equal members of the collective population. This means that a Christian society (post reformation) can admit anyone into the society as equal members.
The Islamic religion, since it considers massive populations as ‘not members of the tribe’ – will require a mode of governance that keeps these non-members under strict control. Totalitarianism can’t be maintained for generations, because it requires a LOT of energy to restrain and control people. If you have small populations, then, you can keep the people all fearful and controlled. But, with the massive global populations, it’s impossible.
Then, the Islamic ideology is focused only on fiction. Not facts. Therefore, it completely lacks any capacity to ‘be scientific’. It can’t produce any new technology – and never has. It lives off the technology of the free West.
So- if this free western individual is stopped dead – then – technology will also end. Those massive Islamic populations won’t be sustained in a world without industrial technology and scientific advances.
I’m not saying our current battle is easy; it’s hard, it has to be fought. The Islamic world is trying desperately to remain in its medieval world; it wants the benefits of industrialism but refuses to participate; it thinks it can buy those technological advances and yet, keep its people enslaved within feudalism and a fictional world. It won’t work. But, it’s a battle right now.
I think many of us are afraid, not of the Islamists ‘taking over the world’, but rather of the Islamists ‘destroying the world’.
Thanks, new kid, for your post. You’re absolutely right about the anti-Christian bias that threatens the good order of present day western democracies.
You wrote, “That’s [the persistent absence at sda of even a nod to the J-C dispensation by most posters] strange, isn’t it, given that Judeo-Christian principles’ being concertedly and consistently under attack by Lefties in our educational and judicial systems, the MSM and the entertainment industries have contributed big-time to threats to the Web of Trust/Western civilization that Bill Whittle describes in his essay?”
I think it’s important that people realize that, as I type–and I’m no Hedy Fry!–Canadian Christians are being persecuted to the point of even being fined and jailed, as well as losing their jobs, for expressing peacefully their views on PC sanctioned issues. Talk about the Web of Trust being threatened! How about tyrannical police state rather than a democracy? Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up.
The Charter is being used by the lefty elites in Canada as a bludgeon to brutally keep in check people–many of them Christians–who don’t toe the PC party line. All of this is authoritatively documented in Rory Leishman’s recent book, Against Judicial Activism. Canadians who care about freedom and justice “should” read this excellent book, which shows just how far from these lofty democratic ideals Canada has descended.
I’ll go so far as to say that the further the West moves from our Judeo-Christian roots, the more unreasonable and tyrannical we become, all in the name of equality. (Sounds a bit like the French–very anti-Christian–Revolution and its aftermath, doesn’t it?)
With the Islamic wolves prowling about outside the ramparts (with quite a few already inside too) and the western propensity to blame itself for its enemies grievances–good grief!!!–we’re in big trouble.
nemo2 -I don’t think there is any answer to your fear, other than to fight against such a result. That’s what we did with Nazi fascism and communism.
Remember, if they destroy the west, they destroy themselves, for the Islamic world is completely unable to sustain itself, within its own political organization and intellectual mode – based as it is only on fiction, and its rejection of factual reality, reason and logic.
The reason the Islamic world can’t sustain itself within its own political organization is because it is organized tribally rather than in a civic mode. Tribalism won’t work with those massive increased Islamic populations. Exporting immigrants to Europe and N. America hasn’t eased the problem. So- it has led to fascism, as the tribial rulers strive to retain control and power.
And of course, the Islamic world’s focus on fiction means that it is unable to invent or develop any technology.
The West is starting to wake up to this ME fascism – and so are the emerging industrial states, such as India and China.
I remain optimistic.
ET, thanks again. And I agree with most of what you say. However, I think it’s a pretty big leap from, logically, we SHOULD triumph over the Islamofacists to we WILL. I’m not so sure.
I think that multiculturalism, which is an enormous error, with its culturalism relativism, was/is an attempt to deal with the ‘mixture’ of peoples resulting from globalization.
By globalization, I mean that peoples living previously more or less spatially and temporally isolated from each other, are now ‘mixed’ both permanently and temporarily. Plane travel, immigration, communication links have all helped to ‘mix’ previously isolated peoples.
Multiculturalism is an ignorant and misguided attempt to accept these ‘new peoples’. Its ignorance is based on its notion of ‘not changing’ these newcomers, but, ‘accepting them as they are’.
But ‘as they are’, which rejects evaluation, means that we are accepting ideologies based on FICTIONS rather than FACTS…as EQUAL!
We are accepting lifestyles based on tribal politics as equal to lifestyles based on the general law and order of a civic political mode!
We are also insisting that these newcomers not change, not abandon their tribalism, their fiction, but remain ‘as they were’. So, we in the west have changed over the centuries, but, we forbid these peoples to do so!
Multiculturalist relativism has to be abandoned. Rapidly. And, we have to openly acknowledge the primacy of reason, logic, facts, individual exploration and questioning – and the ideology that we are all members of the same population, and not splintered into hyphenated ‘distinct peoples’.
The Charter requires amendments, for it’s a disastrous document. In my view, its primary agenda is to set up bilingualism, aka the primacy of French, in our gov’t and in all authoritative positions in Canada. Most of the Charter is devoted to issues around bilingualism, sections 16-24, with many subsections; the LONGEST part of the Charter.
And the Charter doesn’t guarantee individual freedoms, for the multicultural rights of groups takes precedence over any individual.
Section 2, a brief section of only four lines, refers to the freedom of the individual. BUT, Section 15, a much longer section, removes these individual rights under the notion of Equality Rights, for it says that individual equality “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”.
Got that? Your individual rights can be trumped by any law, program or activity that is focused on ‘disadvantaged groups’…whatever that means. So, your right to be a CEO might be reduced because the company requires you to be a ‘member of a visible minority group of the X-religion, transsexual, below the age of consent, and with an obvious mental disability’.
You get my point.
And section 27 reinforces this dominance of the ‘distinct group’, for it says “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians’.
Huh? What does this mean in practice?
ET, you wrote to nemo2, “I don’t think there is any answer to your fear, other than to fight against such a result. That’s what we did with Nazi fascism and communism.”
But things are very different now: In WW II, the West had a lot of confidence in the rightness of what it was doing. There was no MSM and other lefty elites subverting the struggle or critical mass of gullible civilians swallowing the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The treasonous fifth columns in the West–MSM, universities, the UN, international courts (with our very own poisonous snake, Louise Arbor)–are subverting our response and are very dangerous.
A united, confident West is no longer the case. As I wrote ealier, “The West’s deliberate rejection of its spiritual roots for emotionalism, moral relativism, and phony equality has seriously weakened it. An even greater enemy than the Islamic terrorists, I believe, is our internal weakness and decadence. (The Islamists are quite right on that score.) The West seems to have a case of the Stockholm Syndrome, when we seem to have more pity for our sworn enemies (see MSM) than we do for ourselves and our children! (Very unhappy ending coming up: How about good-bye Western Civilzation?)”
I wish I could come to a different conclusion, but, unless the West takes off its rose coloured glasses, pulls up its socks, and gets on with it, we’re in very serious trouble and at real risk of losing all we’ve previously fought so hard for.
ET: Another dichotomy in the Islamic world’s relationship with technology is that on the one hand whatever happens is “The will of Allah”, but simultaneously someone should be ‘blamed’.
A friend/coworker in Riyadh was advised by his managerial Saudi counterpart of an operational malfunction……the first question the Saudi asked was “What should be the punishment for this”? He was informed that ‘excrement occurs’, and that a search for a solution, rather than the imposition of a punishment, was in order.
Given the counterpart’s mindset it’s not surprising that many Islamic workers appear to believe that, if you don’t do anything, you can’t do anything wrong.
Similarly, it seems to me I recall stories of workers/factory managers being shot as saboteurs in the Stalinist days of the Soviet Union, simply because of equipment malfunctions.
Don’t forget the Scottish Enlightenment – Reid, Hume, Smith, etc who, had it not been for them, there would not have been an American Constitution, free market capitalism, etc.
Judeo/Christian? I don’t know – I think it’s simply Christian. It was Christian Churches that built all of the great Universities that stand to this day in North America and most of Europe.
History = Culture = Destiny.
Those on the left are hijacking the arrow of history – inventing a false past in order to justify a future without liberty, democracy and the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for.
ET: Beautiful impassioned writing but still circular!
Western civilization is necessary to sustain a huge population, there will always be a huge population and growing, therefore there will have to be Western Civilization to sustain it.
This just sounds like your version of The End of History.
You say “that I very much doubt that ‘history goes backwards'”. Well, I very much doubt that history goes forwards OR backwards. To suggest that there is some force in history is just Marxism pre-empted.
However, you have great insights into Western fact-Islamic fiction and industrialism-tribalism. But I get the impression that today’s Liberal Arts departments are pushing fiction only (except of course Dead White European Male Oppressor Fiction) and that our environmentalists (including the great man himself David Suzuki) are very contemptuous of industrialism, reverential towards tribalism and deep down hoping for a massive decline in the pesky human population.
That other great man, Maurice Strong, is on record for saying that we need a collapse of industrial society for the survival of the planet.
We have lost our confidence and the universities are the principal villains.
I’d love to hear how you survive in the academy with your views. Do you keep your mouth shut?
ET, thanks for your response and for your admission that one of your arguments–that Western Civilization must survive–is a circular one.
I am aware that you are an atheist, but I don’t think your being an atheist precludes your ability to agree about “first things,” at least in principle. Along with your strong belief “that reason and logic can provide sound moral principles” and that both they and facticity were provided by the Greeks and Romans, you also acknowledge the role that Judeo-Christianity has played in according equality to every individual in a society, a very important distinction which differentiates Western democracies from tribal-based totalitarian theocracies. I appreciate these insights and basically agree. I would add, however, that a belief in a “metaphysical agent”/God does not preclude reason, logic or facticity.
And though I also agree with your analysis of the supremacy of Western civilization’s ability to organize and sustain the complexity and enormity of global populations today, I cannot be as optimistic as you in assuming that Western civilization’s supremacy guarantees our survival.
I wish that this were the case, but your optimism does not take into consideration the metaphysical reality of evil in our world, a concept, admittedly, that most secular humanists and atheists have difficulty with.
When human beings choose to be inhuman–and I am seeing increasing evidence of this in Western civilization–then no amount of reason, logic, and facts are going to save us. You’re correct in saying that Christianity is “a humanist religion,” in the sense that the Judeo-Christian scriptures, of all holy writings, take the most realistic account of humanity: the good, the bad, and the ugly. When human beings choose to be inhuman–something Christianity calls “sin”–then all Hell can, and usually does, break loose.
And that is simply my argument. It is possible for all Hell to break loose when/if humankind in Western democracies makes a conscious decision to break free from its moral/religious moorings. If one is not able to actually enter into the religious sphere and use its arguments, it should at least be possible, if one is to be intellectually honest, to acknowledge the significance of religion in the moral basis of our civilization–and to acknowledge its centrality in establishing most, if not all, of our beneficial humanistic impulses and initiatives.
The fact that, for the most part and except for a very few, thoughtful and intelligent posters at this blog choose to ignore the extremely central and significant role that religion has played in the successful deployment of Western civilization, speaks volumes to the jeopardy we now find ourselves in.
We in the West ignore religion and ban discussion of it from public discourse at our peril. The Apocalypse is not just a fiction.
The only segment of Canadian society not aborting itself out of existence are the Muslims. So much for the culture of death:
Total fertility rate by religious denomination, Canada, 2000-2001:
Total fertility rate
Muslim 2.41
Hindu 2.00
Sikh 1.92*
Jewish 1.86*
Other Christians 1.79*
Protestant 1.65*
Catholic 1.51*
No religion 1.41
Orthodox (Christian) 1.35
Buddhist 1.34
Now that we’ve established that Muslim Canadians have a life-affirming culture and everyone else, including Christians, atheist/agnostics/Buddhists/etc. can reasonably be described as suicidal death cults, let’s proceed from there.
A secular humanist society inevitably will abort themselves to extinction, a Muslim one will not. Which of course explains the secular humanist’s implicit support of illegal and open immigration, which apparently is less of a threat to western civilization than “islamo-fascism” and socialism.
Whittle thinks humans are 100% interchangeable, though, and while un-atheist immigrants might cling to their primitive religious beliefs for a generation, inevitably we’ll all become a shiny happy rainbow of productivity, secularism, and high moral conduct. Again, this contradicts the best available science.
The barbarians are already inside the gate. And it wasn’t me, my generation, my politics, or the “islamo-fascists” that let them in; it was deleterious doofii like Whittle, his generation, and their hippy nonsense that did.
Irwin daisy: “Judeo/Christian? I don’t know – I think it’s simply Christian. It was Christian Churches that built all of the great Universities that stand to this day in North America and most of Europe.”
Without Judaism, there would be no Christianity. Judaism is the root of Christianity. Jesus, after all, was a devout Jew. This is another instance of the impossibility of cutting loose from one’s roots if one wants to survive and flourish. It’s for this reason that J2P2 called the Jews the elder brothers and sisters in the faith of Christians.
Amen, new kid! And many thanks for boldly speaking the truth. We need much more of that in these dark times. Your wise and eloquent words are very much appreciated by me.
Irwin: Just as one cannot separate the head from the rest of the body, one cannot sever Judaism from Christianity. Jesus was a Jew: Christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish faith. The Jews are, as Pope JP II called them “our older brothers and sisters in faith.”
It was the Jews who first discerned ONE GOD. This concept was passed on to both Christians and Muslims. Read The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill to learn more about the seminal influence of the Jews on all of Western Civilization.
Without the Jews, there would be no Mary, no Joseph, no Jesus, no churches. So “Judeo-Christian” it needs to be!
Bob has made a very good point, one which helps to explain the mess our “civilization” is in. The stats vis a vis Christian groups are particlarly alarming, though not surprising as increasing numbers of Christians in the West are breaking free of Scriptural norms and are tailoring Christian values to their particular and personal convenience.
When those of us under the dispensation of “Western Civilization”–because of our ‘sophistication,’ our ‘technological progress’?–began to make the inhuman/evil decision to devalue human life, at both ends of the human-life continuum, through abortion on demand and euthanasia, we began a very fast slide towards extinction.
Western civilization has an enormous Achilles Heel and the Muslims are attacking there. They know that there are some things worth living AND DYING for, something we in the West seem to have forgotten. When I mentioned this at the dinner table of friends a few weeks ago, a very successful businessman whose wife is an elementary school teacher looked at me with horror. He couldn’t imagine what I was talking about…
By far the biggest threat the Western World has is the leftern world within. The appeasers and apologists, the weak and the reality challenged, the sheep and the lemmings amongst us are the threat. Since the days of trudeau I have seen this as the threat to our way of life and social order. The war for our civilization won’t be fought in the ME or anywhere else, but here, and very likely at some time in the future with more that words.
I hope the successful businessman understands what “dhimmitude” means. This word isn’t even included in the new Oxford Canadian Dictionary. It damn well should be as that’s right where we’re headed if we don’t smarten up.
I highly recommend Melanie Phillips’s new book, Londonistan–she had real trouble finding a publisher–which documents the West’s precipitous slide into dhimmitude. This book should particularly be read by people with their heads in the sand. (I’m using the polite reference here!)
And, Bob, I appreciated your comments. Thanks.
My comment on multiculturalism, which I am strongly against- got lost in the spam filter. It’s too long to repeat, so I’ll just deal with current comments.
in reply to lookout, me no dhimmi, and nemo2, yes, I admit it sounds like an ‘end to history’ argument. It is most certainly NOT Marxist, for I don’t agree with a linear determinism and most certainly disagree with his ‘the end of the state’.
My analysis is based, as I said, on energy dynamics, which is a biological analysis of energy or ‘matter content’ of an organism and/or system, and an analysis of how this matter content must be organized..to retain that matter.
So, a small population, which is small because the env’t in which it lives can’t support large populations, is organized differently than a large population. Just as a paramecium is organized in a simple manner while a large animal is organized in a more complex manner. This isn’t ‘historical determinism’; it’s biological reality.
I agree with me no dhimmi’s views of our universities! I am indeed, one of the very few, who are not postmodernist, who insist on facts and logic, one of the few who teaches critical thinking and insists on reasons and evidence in research papers – and not just on ‘opinions’. Am I opposed? You bet- I haven’t spoken to many of my colleagues for years. They are all part of the postmodern, relativist, feminist club. My associates are in the sciences – in physics, biology, computer science, bioengineering. And, they are almost all outside of Canada. Canadian research, which is centrally governed by our ONE research funding agency, is ruled by bilingualist postmodernists, anti-Americans.
new kid – I tend to agree with Irwin Daisy, I think it was primarily reform Christianity, with its focus on the duty and responsibility of the individual and its insistence that all humans were equal – rather than Judaism, that ‘roots’
western civilization (as well as the Greek/Roman base). The universities, after all, were started about the time of the reformation. Interestingly, so were museums, which meant that we ‘put the past away’ and didn’t keep repeating it.
I also do believe in the notion of ‘evil’, but of course, not a metaphysical evil, since I reject any metaphysical forces. But humans most certainly have the capacity for evil.
Bob – the Muslim population rate will decrease in 19-20 years. No, the non-Muslim are not ‘suicidal death cults’. None of the three words in your phrase validly represents a population simply reproducing itself, as these groups are.
I think you should define ‘secular humanism’. It, in its original and legitimate meaning, doesn’t mean postmodern relativist, but a genuine open humanist, whose decisions are based on facts, reason, logic and analysis – and an awareness of ‘the golden rule’.
Thanks, ET, for thoughtful comments, though you still haven’t altogether sold me!
And where does the golden rule come from? Hmmm . . .
Perfectly stated, Western Canadian. This “islam-o-fascist” business is a red herring, whether intentional or not. We have seen the real enemy, and he is us.
Some have suggested that pro-Bush folks are cranking this meme out in a comically inept attempt to distract from domestic issues such as illegal immigration, abortion, an absurd legal system, breathtaking disregard for the constitution, increasing racial tensions, massive and total domestic spying, record discretionary non-war-related federal spending increases, affirmative action, “PC-chill” in academia and elsewhere, and on and on, but that’s insane tinfoil hat conspiracy talk that only a commie would believe.
Mike Harris could use a little help over at this “Greatest Prime Minister We Never Had” contest..
http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/
lookout – I think that the ‘golden rule’ is a logical conclusions. It comes from reason and logic. It doesn’t, I feel, come from religion – which I’m sure is your conclusion.
As you know, I’m an atheist, so I don’t accept any metaphysical force. I consider that religions are human constructs and that the Christian religion, as reformed in the 1100 and on era, is a ‘humanist’ ideology in that it accepts all people as members of its society. It is not, like Islam and Judaism, tribal, which accept people primarily by hereditary links. Judaism, unlike Islam, is not an expansionist religion, it doesn’t insist on ‘be like us or die or be subservient’. But- again, as an atheist, I’m not a follower of religion.
bob- that’s a remarkable conclusion. So, Islamic fascism doesn’t exist? It’s just a diversionary tactic of..guess who..the Americans. You seem to, like the Islamists, also live in a purely fictional world. I presume 9/11 didn’t happen, the London, Madrid, Indonesian bombings didn’t happen, Theo Van Gogh wasn’t murdered, on and on. None of it happened. It’s all a plot.
Judeo/Christian is a socially acceptable sound bite without anyone questioning it’s meaning in context of modern civilization. Of course both Lookout and New Kid are right in terms of the pre-history of Christianity rooted in Judaism and Christ’s confirmation of Mosaic law. However, what I’m simply saying is the Judeo part had little more than that to do with the establishment of the west and it’s ideals. With the equality of man in Christ, there wasn’t much room left for a chosen race.
Akenaton also believed in monotheism. Albeit, his was the sun disc god. Maybe the imagery was representative of something spiritual?
The problem in the west is the socio/political division between the left and the right – which has become almost violent. Meanwhile the Islamites are howling at the door ready to blow the house down. A house divided against itself and all that – which, if I’m not mistaken, Lincoln took from the Bible.
Well, well, this is quite a deep subject. New Kid and Lookout, I quite appreciate your thoughts and sentiments. I can relate. Must be a woman thing.
ET; please forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you or missed something, I have to admit I haven’t thoroughly read each and every post. You said this to Lookout; ” by the way, lookout, with your reference to the Islamic mode ‘taking over the world’ – my point is that this is impossible.
I admit they are certainly trying, but, pragmatically, it is impossible.
The reason is, that the Islamic ideology is both non-industrial and non-collaborative. By the latter, I mean that it is purely kin-based; it is tribe-based. It considers other peoples as ‘dhimmi’. The Christian religion, after the reformation, was/is a humanist religion in that it considers all human beings as equal members of the collective population. This means that a Christian society (post reformation) can admit anyone into the society as equal members.”
I am wondering if you considered the collaborative efforts of China, North Korea, Ruusia, etc. when it comes to taking over the world?
Like New Kid and Lookout, I’d like to share your optimism but I think you are undersetimating the collaborators and the resources available.
First, I appreciate the comments — and especially the link — thanks, Kate.
Second, I did acknowledge that there do in fact seem to be biological differences in IQ. However, these differences may amount to 15 points — not insignificant, I agree. But here is the point: The world’s most successful Arabs live in America. The world’s most successful Latinos live in America. The world’s most successful blacks live in America. And, when you take out the boutique, First, I appreciate the comments — and especially the link — thanks, Kate.
Second, I did acknowledge that there do in fact seem to be biological differences in IQ. However, these differences may amount to 15 points — not insignificant, I agree. But here is the point: The world’s most successful Arabs live in America. The world’s most successful Latinos live in America. The world’s most successful blacks live in America. And, when you take out the boutique, less than 30 million countries, the world’s most successful whites live in America.
Now that tells me something, and what it tells me is that a simple metric like prosperity is not racially defined — by this I mean, racially excluded. The successful and prosperous members of every race and cultural group I meet in this country have one thing in commmon, and that is attitude. That seems dramatically plain to me.
My only argument is that whatever genetic differences there are — and I belive there are some, based upon the scientific evidence — pale in comparison to the effect that attitude and immersion in a can-do culture has on success.
And Agitfact’s summary of my argument is a perfect example of people writing wht I did not say as if I did, to then hold up to ridicule. It seems that such a tactic would be unnecessary, if the argument was as specious as he claims. The core of his argument seems to be that the left is not trying to destroy the values necessary to the success of Western Civilization. I would refer him to Horowitz’s THE PROFESSORS as a starting point. Those cases are not Horowitz’s opinion; they are the agendas of leading American academics IN THEIR OWN WORDS. Read what these people are saying about Western Civilization, and then ask me again if I can question their patriotism. I not only question their patriotism, I question their SANITY.
Thanks, Western Canadian: my thoughts in a nutshell. Occasionally, it’s important to crack the nutshell open and expose the ‘meat’ within–kudos to lookout and ET for their contributions! But very succinctly put, WC.
We have seen the enemy and it is US–not THE U.S. but we, ourselves, each individual, each one of us going in his/her own way, like sheep that have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6): the “new” freedom which is actually licentiousness and enslavement.
I smelled a rat the first time I saw Trudeau pirouette with that stupid rose between his teeth. And I submit, that it was when Canadians at that time were, en masse, repudiating religion and deconstructing the real reasons for Western freedoms–which until then had always been based on the kind of equality only Christianity acknowledges because of its belief that every human being is made in the image of God/the Creator of the Universe, and not based on any inate goodness, reason, or logic in humankind–that the ball of twine (Web of Trust) began to seriously and rapidly unravel.
“Those on the left are hijacking the arrow of history – inventing a false past in order to justify a future without liberty, democracy and the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for.” – Irwin Daisy at July 31, 2006 11:28 AM
Problem identified, but wrong culprits. It is not lefties who are bending the course of history on this thread, it is established SDA stalwarts.
There has been great discourse about the Judeo-Christian tradition, Magna Carta, and the Reformation, until finally Irwin Daisy mentioned the Age of Enlightenment. My cue!
Yes, our civilization incorporates part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But if the Judeo-Christian tradition were everything, we’d still be in the Dark Ages (or ET’s state of fiction.)
Magna Carta was not the result of King John Lackland receiving divine inspiration, but of a bunch of rebellious barons who had him by the royal purse strings. Its further evolution also was driven by imposed political necessity, not royal magnanimity or Christian insight.
The Reformation only introduced a variant to Christian way of doing business, the Protestant. Whether the sovereign was Catholic or Protestant made little difference to the life or liberty of the subject. And we all can glory in the religious wars of our Christian tradition. (Perhaps someone would consider doing a website called “The Real Religion of Peace,” similar to the existing TROP one.)
The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular. Yes, dour Scots, such as Hume, were heavy hitters, but so were frisky Frenchmen, (such as Voltaire) and even dastardly Germans (Leibnitz and co.) The upshot was that man became important as a human being in itself, and stopped being the mere subject of church and state. The Age of Reason then applied rationality to dearly-held fictions, and we were off to the races in science.
Three points to this story:
1.) Don’t overplay the role of religion in getting us to our current state of civilization. We may trust in God, but respond mainly to practical necessity, and rely on big battalions just in case.
2.) Don’t ignore the role of reason in getting us here and protecting us in future. Moral Rearmament may not be enough.
3.) Ask yourselves about the role of “conservatives” and “progressives” in Magna Carta, Reformation and Enlightenment, and why this history should end with current conservatism. (Personally, I think that our “right” vs. “left” mud-match has nothing to do with civilization, and everything with party politics gone mad.)
Good article, Bill. Thanks for following up with your comments.
Bill it isn’t necessary to convert your ‘seconds’
into metric for us Canadians. Many of us dinosaurs know imperial quite well. LOL!
ET: “A complex organism doesn’t reduce to a simple organism”
Happens all the time, my friend. It’s called “thermodynamics”.