Western Civilization.

[Kagemusha]

So from a long time i thought to start a thread here in backroom on this fine evening. I have been thinking again(i know,i shouldnt bother myself with such trivial things~;) )Simple question, how are we doing?
These days we hear lot about the clash of civilizations, Immigration problems, social problems, economical problems, decadence, birth rates. You name it.
Is the Western Civilization really going towards is Sundown or is this just complete noncence about people worrying about nothing?:bow:

[lancelot]

I think something is wrong, although I'll be damned if I could point my finger at one thing...its probably everything.

A lot of slates could do with being wiped clean, I think.

If I had to point out one thing Id say it is selfishness in all levels of society- from your self-centred vote, to the self-serving politicians- who lead their nations in walking over others to further their own selfish national agendas...at the expense of enviroment, peace, national stability etc etc...

I dunno, perhaps it is too big...

[Kagemusha]

I think something is wrong, although I'll be damned if I could point my finger at one thing...its probably everything.

A lot of slates could do with being wiped clean, I think.

If I had to point out one thing Id say it is selfishness in all levels of society- from your self-centred vote, to the self-serving politicians- who lead their nations in walking over others to further their own selfish national agendas...at the expense of enviroment, peace, national stability etc etc...

I dunno, perhaps it is too big...

I pretty much agree.Those are intresting points. Maybe we have become too individualistic and becouse of that our Societys are declining?

[Vladimir]

Western civilization isn't immune from the cycle that affects all successful civilizations. Basically you go from dirt poor, to fighting to the top, to prosperity, to apathy and decline, and eventually defeat. Just like Babylon (don’t know too much about them though), Rome, etc. That’s another reason why I’m a big Star Trek fan and want to start colonizing other planets. That way a new civilization has a chance to evolve and surpass the old. You can see the same thing happened to the Almunghavars (whatever those MTW units are).

[Don Corleone]

In many ways, the sense of unease and the questions we always have are a good sign. It means we're never satisfied, always striving to improve. If we were perfectly content and convinced we had reached our pinnacle, where would we go, what would we do? Humans were built to strive towards.... something.

Besides, why are you asking about Civilization? You're a Finn on a Friday night, nothing remotely civilized there... :antlers: :smoking: :stars: ~:cheers:

Just kidding..... all things being equal, I'd rather be in Oulu right now. ~:pat:

[Kagemusha]

Besides, why are you asking about Civilization? You're a Finn on a Friday night, nothing remotely civilized there... :antlers: :smoking: :stars: ~:cheers:

Just kidding..... all things being equal, I'd rather be in Oulu right now. ~:pat:

Well sometimes i get this weird urge to talk all civilized.~;) (Ok ive had one Vodka.Or was it two...:oops: ) But to be honest im not sure that the social problems are diminishing,or maybe im just being pessimistic.

[Pindar]

Is the Western Civilization really going towards is Sundown or is this just complete noncence about people worrying about nothing?:bow:

The West dominates four Continents and has massive impact on two others. Economically, politically, socially, militarily etc. it is without rival.

[yesdachi]

Without giving a big meaning of life answer, I think we are fine. Different, but the same. Things change, threats change, attitudes change, but realistically we are good. Like having ¾ of a glass of soda and having the server ask if we want more? Nope, were good.

I do think we are, individually, less financially secure, and have a higher % of debt then we have had in the past and the amount of red tape we have to claw thru each day may have increased in the last few years and our internal party bickering is counterproductive on record levels but I honestly don’t see any real threat to the “west” if we continue to confront the problems we encounter (some problems need more prodding to get the problem solvers to address them then others) like immigration, security, the economy, etc.
:2cents:

[Kagemusha]

The West dominates four Continents and has massive impact on two others. Economically, politically, socially, militarily etc. it is without rival.

I agree on that completely, but maybe its not threatened from outside, but within. When you look at our societys are they developing or declining?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In Britain we're in deep ****, our society has become obsessed with wealth. Our culture is just fading away and our over-taxed and over-worked population strive all week so that they can hold onto the spinning not slightly longer and then go out and binge drink.

The Concorda Ordinum in our society is shot to hell. The upper class despise the Lower Class. The Lower Class can barely find jobs and hate the Upper Class, the Middle Class bear the tax burdain and they hate everyone.

We need the equevilant of a flash flood or forest fire. We need to have War, a real one we can lose.

The West doesn't really compete with anyone else or within itself.

Yes, we're in serious trouble.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

meh the only thing i worry about here in greece is communism and turks invading us AGAIN.

[Samurai Waki]

I have thought about this some.

Humanity has gotten to far ahead of itself. One or two hundred years ago, people didn't know about most things, they didn't concern themselves with the outside world, what they did concern themselves with is finding the right means in which to survive, and doing the right things that in their minds would earn them a spot in heaven. Aside from that, life was pretty simple, you lived and worked on a farm, you had your good years, and your bad but at least you were doing something to keep you and your family alive, and maybe once and awhile have enough cash in your pocket to go out and buy something for your family.
Life was harder, and you actually had to strive to be able to appreciate what you had, and work hard for what you didn't, just to make your life a little easier. Yeah, there was war, and plague, and suffering...maybe worse than it is now.
Somewhere along the road, Western Ideology was abruptly changed, there were new ways of thinking and percieving the world and morality. Slow but steadily we grew, new gadgets and inventions came along to make life a little more entertaining or easier. People put down the sickle to work in a factory, after all when you had money in hand, you didn't have to worry so much about wether or not you were going to have a good or bad harvest this year, and you could also afford to buy things for your family when you wanted too.
There was easy money in industrialization, nobody worried so much about agriculture, new ways of harvesting had double...tripled...quadrupled a single farms yearly output. Only one person was needed to the job that before ten people would have to do. Years pass, everything gets easier and easier with the new technology... we don't have to worry about the things we used too, somebody or something else can do the work no one else wants too. Wars are still fought, the brutality is like nothing anybody had ever seen before, and the psychological aspects of it are entirely different. No, war didn't mean having to worry about the other guy Pillaging your farm and raping your daughters, war meant fighting for your very existence, your ideology. And with ideology comes scapegoats, millions killed for sake of a better and united world order?
A little more time passes, everything gets a little easier. But we are still haunted by our past, we have grown beyond the mass murdering stage, but we're forcing other countries other lives to accept our ideologies, which are entirely alien to them. No, there will never be peace with such a restless existance, they suddenly have to look at what they've been doing for a thousand years and say "I guess I can see your point." Everyone will hate us because they know we are further ahead of them than they will ever be able to reach, and it angers them that we think we know how to live our lives. So there will be counter revolutions, they will kill us because they hate us for what we are and what we are trying to do to them.
Meanwhile back home, we look at ourselves long and hard. We see a guy dressed up in a suite and tie looking distantly into the mirror, a million miles from where he is. He has to go into his office every single day, file papers, do reports, talk on the phone, go home, eat food, love his wife, watch tv and then go to sleep only to wake up and do the same the very next day. He doesn't have time anymore to take care of his children, to look after his wife, no, its all spent making money, trying to live a vague dream with maybe just one little hope of trying to get out of the machine. And there are some who are okay with just being a cog until the day they die.
But their children, see their parents, working, suffering, toiling in their misery. And nobody to look after them, yes, they get a hug and a kiss once and awhile but the attention isn't there, they don't know who their parents are anymore, and they hate them for it, and quietly vow to themselves to never do to their children, what their parents have done to them.
They grow older, father still gone, still a million miles from them. They stop seeing the point, there is no ideology left, nothing more to strive for. Violence, hate, and destruction is all that the world is to them. This is the west, we're at the pinnacle of civilization as we know it, and yet they see their brothers go to war, and when they come back, if they come back, all they see is a ghost. He didn't ask why he had to fight, he didn't question it, all he knew is that he had too...because over there, theres oil and theres people that hate us, thats a good reason to fight. Our Politicians are corrupt kleptomaniacs, and yet we still advocate freedom and prosperity for all. No. Freedom and Prosperity for them.
The new generation grows, as the old generations wanes. And we take hold of the world, not knowing why or what we are to do. There are sharp divides in opinion, sharper then there ever has been. One side presses to listen to the advice of their superiors, the other dissents, out of hate, out of rage, out of being robbed of love from their parents. We are a society that is crumble internally, and yet we're all so blind as to not see it. We think we need to take what we want because its already there, but it won't be for long. Soon it will be up to us to carry on the message of our forefathers, but we're all so tired, we don't see the point anymore. All we want is to cave into our own shadows and never come out. The few that care about taking the reigns of control all want power and respect, or fear, because thats how we survived our childhoods.

Is western civilization falling? Maybe. Maybe not. But we're all confused, and in the coming years we will won't know what to do. What we need is a message, a goal for the long term, something to strive for for, a reason to exist... Non Western Civilizations have that. We Don't as a society, all that we care about is what the individual is doing. All that we care about is what is at the end of the road for all of us.

[doc_bean]

In Europe at least we are losing the culture clash simply because we aren't breeding enough. There's a lot potential here to gain prosperity and when the locals don't use it someone else is going to come over and take it. Such is life. We've become too lazy, too focused on our own desires. We trade children for the chance to lie on a Turkish beach a couple of times a year. We don't start new businesses because the work is too hard. We don't do much manual labour since it's too hard work. In short we have too much.

But are we doomed ? I don't know. Europe is facing another massive immigration wave that might change this place forever (I've heard numbers saying there are about a million ILLEGAL immigrants in Belgium, on a population of 10 million). But that's just blood and genes, not our way of life. I belief personal freedom, which to me is the foundation of modern western society, is still appealing, also to immigrants and even in non western countries.

Things change, that's the way of the world, change is not always for the better, but it is unavoidable.

EDIT: just like to say, great post Wakizashi !

[Rodion Romanovich]

So from a long time i thought to start a thread here in backroom on this fine evening. I have been thinking again(i know,i shouldnt bother myself with such trivial things~;) )Simple question, how are we doing?These days we hear lot about the clash of civilizations, Immigration problems, social problems, economical problems, decadence, birth rates. You name it.
Is the Western Civilization really going towards is Sundown or is this just complete noncence about people worrying about nothing?:bow:

Things to improve:

1. foreign affairs - use a more passive policy and try to clean our conscience in international affairs. If someone comes with death treaths we don't need to act, because most of them only give empty words. Those who don't are quickly discovered and can be attacked with precision.
a. avoid things like the Iraq war, unless apologies of formal declarations of change and despise of the earlier policies are made
b. all western leaders must read history to know which old conflicts they'll face. Conflicts from 50-100 years back may continue in the reign of someone who didn't take part in starting the conflicts, and he thinks he's unprovokedly attacked when the opponent in reality launches a counter-offensive and revenge. Knowing when it isn't unprovoked is a good start when acting internationally.
c. use a heavily earmarked form of aid to the third world. Only give aid to pensions, not to education and the young. It's the lack of pension that causes the overpopulation in the third world and only by ending overpopulation can these countries stop being such infernos. And only if they stop being infernos will illegal mass immigration of people with mental damages from war to western countries continue. Countries whose leaders immediately take this money and prevents it from proper usage will lose the aid money. The population then needs to revolt or continue to live in poverty. Due to the importance of aid for them, this will cause revolts that the local leaders can't stop, especially if we stop selling arms to them, see 2d.

2. internal constitutional affairs
a. maintain democracy at all costs and reinforce it
b. stop wiretapping, population control, constitutional crises, two party systems, problematic bureaucracy for starting new parties, the difficulties for new parties to get mass media attention.
c. in those countries who have them, close all torture camps and start treating prisoners of war humanely. All prison camps must be public so everybody can see what happens in them. Only reason to hide what goes on in a camp is because there is something to hide. The nazis and commies hid their camps for a reason. There's nothing good coming out of hiding such camps from the public if you don't have anything to hide - the rumors will have the same effect as if the camps were nazi concentration camps even if they aren't.
c. improve education so people don't vote for madmen
d. forbid companies in western countries from selling arms to dictators or oppressive leaders abroad, regardless of whether they're at war with western countries or not. This way local stability and peace is assured, and thus less overpopulation and less illegal immigration problems remain.

3. immigration
a. by ensuring peace and stopping overpopulation in the third world by mainly 1c, the immigration will decline. This is good for everyone because the entire world can't live in Europe and America - the rest of the world must be made peaceful and stable so it is inhabitable
b. by 1b and 1a (and also 1c), the guilt from colonialism times will be go away, and people abroad will over time stop being hostile to the western world. When this guilty rightly disappears, people in the western world will want to defend the western world, rather than rebel against it. Currently ablut 50% in every wester world country seems to support terrorists and other people that would normally be an enemy of their countries. This is something that must end, but it won't end by terror, wiretapping and persecution of the local population, but through making them trust their leadership. Once this guilt disappears, and the situation in the third world countries improves, immigration will decrease, but also - more importantly - we have a right to (and 99% will feel so) stop the illegal immigration with harsh measures, in the cases where it damages us. When it doesn't, it can of course continue if we wish so.
c. all immigrants from war regions should be given therapy to deal with their mental problems. This would decrease the violence crimes among immigrants, which are cause of incorrect racism accusations.
d. the immigration must be limited so the local cultural group maintains a majority, so as to ensure there are no rapid switches between say islamic rule and western rule. The regions must be stable and maintain approximately the same culture, except for components of the culture that are dangerous in one way or another. Because western culture seems to be the most tolerant at this time, it's important that all countries currently having a western secular/atheistic/Christianity-based culture maintains such a culture, and that can only happen if they are a majority so that no parties with say islamic or other non-western basis gets to power in these countries.
e. end all labor immigration until at least 95% of all currently living in western countries have jobs

4. enlightenment
a. a good school system must be kept. Only by keeping a good school will people vote democratically and understand the dangers of colonialistic attitude, racism or similar and the importance of maintaining democracy. It's people that have gone through a country's school system that becomes the next ruling generation. Therefore the least successful students in school must understand the value of democracy. There should be no propaganda style emotional way of teaching about democracy and history, but a realistic and dry presentation of the facts. A democracy being democratic because democracy is good is not a democracy for long, as it's easy to redefine the meaning of the word democracy if the people are unaware of it's true meaning and the motivation behind it.
b. make sure science is sponsored by the state. State-sponsored science must be a counter-weight to the heavily biased company-sponsored science aiming to prove the superiority of a product (which often isn't superior)

5. military - there should be no problems maintaining superior military force if the above things are implemented. The western countries if all have implemented democracy etc. are likely to stand up against any countries not having implemented these things if needed. Thus the military strength of an individual western country doesn't matter as much as the total strength of western countries. Countries that keep using torture, doubtful foreign policies, colonies in Africa etc., will of course be excluded from this deal and such countries will weaken the position of democracy in general in the world. Democratic countries should do everything that is legal and not a hostile act, to make such countries go back to democracy.

6. economy - this shouldn't be any problem either, because the western world is a large portion of the world. As long as environmental friendly long term solutions to energy problems etc. are found, all will be ok. If needed, the western world concept may have to be expanded, by including more nations and people into the concept. All people who embrace democracy, freedom of speech and critisize torture and brutal barbaric treatment of POWs and similar should be allowed to become part of the western world concept. A plan should be made from if economical problems strike the western world countries but doesn't hurt countries that aren't part of the western world and are undemocratic. Such a situation is unlikely to occur if proper global military industry espionage is employed.

7. status quo for nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons must be used by western world countries unless attacked first by a nuclear weapon from a country that isn't democratic.

8. ending exploitation of foreigners
a. use police actions to end imported prostitutes. If this fails, legalize prostitution but force all prostitutes to be registered. Visting unregistered prostitutes should give harsh sentences
b. western companies should be responsible for making sure subsidiaries and companies abroad they buy raw materials and products from should implement acceptable working conditions for the people in those countries.

Summary: the 3 most important factors are 1. remove all guilt from the western world so people get a good conscience and are motivated to fight for the right to live with western ideals in the countries that form the western world at this time. 2. only way to properly remove this guilt is to remove all reasons for others to hate the western world, so we rightly deserve to defend ourselves. It's about increasing the morale of the western world basically. The reason why the western world must survive at this time is because currently it's one of the few parts of the world that are attempting to be tolerant. To maintain tolerance, you must be intolerant to the intolerant gaining power. However this would be a 100 year program, so we must be prepared to face enemies during the time we carry this out. However if we truly make efforts BEFORE they are hostile to us, we have shown that we are trying to help and not weak who submit to their demands and that using terror won't give them benefits. Then we also improve our abilities to defend ourselves. Defending does however not mean attacking an entire country because 10 suicide bombers from that country carried out a terrorist action. Our work on airport security etc. and education for our police forces has given results. Wiretapping and terrorizing abroad has however had no positive effects. 3. make sure democracy is maintained so dictatorship doesn't put dangerous leaders at power in our countries. Internal dictatorship is a more dangerous thing than any external threat in the foreseeable future could ever be.

[macsen rufus]

Not complicated: western civilization will last at most five minutes longer than the oil supply.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'll limit my contribution to quoting the Mahatma when he was asked what he thought of Western civilisation.

"I think it would be a very good idea."

:bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Bah, doom and gloom. Life is fun and we're more civilized now then we ever have been.

[Byzantine Prince]

Who needs civilization when you have bondage sex orgies?

[The Wizard]

Clash of civilizations?

Nice media hype.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who needs civilization when you have bondage sex orgies?

hah, exactly. People always say "Romans of the Decadence" like it's a bad thing :laugh4:

[AntiochusIII]

Legio: That's impossible. Try screw Wal-Mart. :sweatdrop:

Of all your points, though, one stands out to me as absurd. Mental therapy for war refugees? What's that for? How could you assume that refugees from war-ravaged countries are automatically troubled, will resort to racism and violence, and therefore will become a detriment to the West?

If anything, war refugees aren't very different from any other immigrants, and often they are more appreciative of their newly adopted homes than any other immigrants -- and much more than the entitled natives -- to be able to live free in peace and prosperity.

I don't think the Vietnamese immigrants of the Vietnam War generation needed mass therapy, for example.

Mind you, bondage sex orgies is civilization at its...erm...most flaunting. :wacky:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Legio: That's impossible. Try screw Wal-Mart. :sweatdrop:
What exactly has wal-mart done that's so evil? If they haven't done anything evil then I guess it's just good that you cant screw them. If they have done something evil, then there's always the national guard and the US army. No criminal company/organization can survive for long if they truly threaten the security of the nation in some way. While some companies may leave the country as a result of such military action, there's little danger that any others than those companies who are carrying out illegal and unethical activities will leave.



Of all your points, though, one stands out to me as absurd. Mental therapy for war refugees? What's that for? How could you assume that refugees from war-ravaged countries are automatically troubled, will resort to racism and violence, and therefore will become a detriment to the West?

If they aren't troubled, they will be let out of therapy after a single session. But imagine yourself coming to an unknown country. You've escaped and barely survived. All your friends and relatives have been killed by bullets in front of your eyes. You don't understand any of the bureaucracy of the country you've come to, you're lost in the middle of the crowds and don't know the language. You can't find a job because many employers are racists. Would you feel good? Would you honestly say you don't need any help? The thing is - many people in our countries go to psychologists for five to ten years over having seen a single dead body of their deceased grandmother, something that ridiculous, while these guys have seen their children or relatives shot to pieces before their eyes. People must be given time and assistance to get over such traumas. We can't just put these traumatized people, of which many are apathic, anorectic, post-traumatic stress-affected etc. into society and expect them to work, then when some of them become criminals have people saying that people of their race, religion or culture are more violent and criminal than others. These people must be given a chance. And if not help with emotions, they need help with strategy and understanding how to establish themselves within the new society system they have come to. Many non-foreigners who go to therapy actually don't have any emotional problems but simply need a good life strategy and information about these things that are so difficult to find information about, but as a result of lacking such strategy have received emotional problems. Also you might not know, but many immigrants due to lack of information about the new country, together with previous traumas, and finally together with lacking skills in the language spoken in the country they come to, get depressions and become isolated. Some of the most frequent visitors to hospitals are immgrants who haven't gone through proper integration procedures but have just been put into some concrete building in a ghetto and forgotten, with depression and isolation being the typical diagnosis.

And also I'd like to point out that as far as immigration goes, these refugees from war countries are the refugees we should give most room to, these are the refugees that truly need to come here, whereas labor immigration and immigration from countries that have a slightly better situation must be stopped so as to give room for the people from war-ravaged countries that truly need help. It's a known fact that there's a limited capacity for taking care of immigrants, and that capacity should go to those who need it most. Immigrants who come from countries where they don't starve and don't have wars, that come here just for luxury and improved living standards are in a way murderers when they by coming here block the path for those who really need to immigrate to our countries from war-ravaged regions.

Oh and as far as integration goes it's not only about helping the newcomers but it's also a necessary step for ensuring their loyalty. They may keep their religion etc., but when coming here they should learn that:
1. Christian symbols might remain on our old cultural buildings and monuments, that doesn't mean we critisize their religion
2. the main language spoken is the language of the country they come to
3. gestures are to be interpreted using the new country's guidelines. Gestures that are evil in their home countries aren't necessarily evil gestures here
4. just because we've helped them doesn't mean we're stupid idiots who will let them commit crimes. Just because we have lower sentences it doesn't mean that crime is a profitable thing to do here.
5. any citizen of these countries has as his duty to fight for preservation of democracy and tolerance
6. freedom of speech exists, even to critisize to some extent
7. they will not be allowed to continue fighting their old wars and conflicts from their homelands when they have come to western countries.

[AntiochusIII]

What exactly has wal-mart done that's so evil? If they haven't done anything evil then I guess it's just good that you cant screw them. If they have done something evil, then there's always the national guard and the US army. No criminal company/organization can survive for long if they truly threaten the security of the nation in some way. While some companies may leave the country as a result of such military action, there's little danger that any others than those companies who are carrying out illegal and unethical activities will leave.The Chinese manufacturing empire and its slaving workers with piss-poor pays?

Aren't you essentially complaining about that in your other post?

Hence I said impossible: outsourcing allows companies to sell products for very low prices, and like hell Americans are going to suddenly get all protectionist and willing to pay more for less for the sake of whatever grand plans the World Leaders have for humanity.

If they aren't troubled, they will be let out of therapy after a single session. But imagine yourself coming to an unknown country. You've escaped and barely survived. All your friends and relatives have been killed by bullets in front of your eyes. You don't understand any of the bureaucracy of the country you've come to, you're lost in the middle of the crowds and don't know the language. You can't find a job because many employers are racists. Would you feel good? Would you honestly say you don't need any help? The thing is - many people in our countries go to psychologists for five to ten years over having seen a single dead body of their deceased grandmother, something that ridiculous, while these guys have seen their children or relatives shot to pieces before their eyes. People must be given time and assistance to get over such traumas. We can't just put these traumatized people, of which many are apathic, anorectic, post-traumatic stress-affected etc. into society and expect them to work, then when some of them become criminals have people saying that people of their race, religion or culture are more violent and criminal than others. These people must be given a chance. And if not help with emotions, they need help with strategy and understanding how to establish themselves within the new society system they have come to. Many non-foreigners who go to therapy actually don't have any emotional problems but simply need a good life strategy and information about these things that are so difficult to find information about, but as a result of lacking such strategy have received emotional problems. Also you might not know, but many immigrants due to lack of information about the new country, together with previous traumas, and finally together with lacking skills in the language spoken in the country they come to, get depressions and become isolated. Some of the most frequent visitors to hospitals are immgrants who haven't gone through proper integration procedures but have just been put into some concrete building in a ghetto and forgotten, with depression and isolation being the typical diagnosis.Pardon me, but as an immigrant myself (and with all the assorted culture shock, yadda yadda etcetera) I don't particularly think you're blaming the right goat here. In fact, you said it yourself in this very post what is the cause of people suffering serious problems in their new countries: ghettos. Ghettos: oppression, low quality of life, inability to expand the horizons, inability to receive wide contact with the "home" civilization, everyday dangers, everyday economic depressions, and so on and so forth. Why do you think French natural-born citizens -- thugs as they were -- were trying to burn Paris to the ground some months ago? I personally don't remember any Vietnamese war refugee riots in the West Coast.

Not because they just moved into a new country. Besides, the less consumerized Easterners usually tend to be less addictive of all the accommodations of Western civilization, like therapies, Union paychecks, and lawsuits.

And also I'd like to point out that as far as immigration goes, these refugees from war countries are the refugees we should give most room to, these are the refugees that truly need to come here, whereas labor immigration and immigration from countries that have a slightly better situation must be stopped so as to give room for the people from war-ravaged countries that truly need help. It's a known fact that there's a limited capacity for taking care of immigrants, and that capacity should go to those who need it most. Immigrants who come from countries where they don't starve and don't have wars, that come here just for luxury and improved living standards are in a way murderers when they by coming here block the path for those who really need to immigrate to our countries from war-ravaged regions.If that so happens I probably won't be here, since last I checked Thailand wasn't exactly a war-ravaged country. A pedophile haven with serious corruption problems and political syndicates with ministers being fronts for prostitution/drugs/bootlegging mafia empires, way too many conservatives in a very traditionalist sense, and a general lack of anything realistically considered as Freedom of Speech, may be, but certainly not war-ravaged, especially compare to the likes of Mianmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

That's beside the point, though. If National Sovereignty still stands then the nation usually goes for the best "candidates" available. It's like how Stanford don't take too kindly legitimate needs for excellent education but seek the best candidates (who would've done well anywhere anyway, those no-life overachievers drilled from birth) to join.

And war-ravaged countries don't produce much of an educated populace, though one wouldn't count them down for enthusiasm.

Oh and as far as integration goes it's not only about helping the newcomers but it's also a necessary step for ensuring their loyalty. They may keep their religion etc., but when coming here they should learn that:
1. Christian symbols might remain on our old cultural buildings and monuments, that doesn't mean we critisize their religion
2. the main language spoken is the language of the country they come to
3. gestures are to be interpreted using the new country's guidelines. Gestures that are evil in their home countries aren't necessarily evil gestures here
4. just because we've helped them doesn't mean we're stupid idiots who will let them commit crimes. Just because we have lower sentences it doesn't mean that crime is a profitable thing to do here.
5. any citizen of these countries has as his duty to fight for preservation of democracy and tolerance
6. freedom of speech exists, even to critisize to some extent
7. they will not be allowed to continue fighting their old wars and conflicts from their homelands when they have come to western countries.Eh, you're trying to summarize Europe's problem with a flood of immigrants that it totally, absolutely, abysmally fails to deal with?

I don't particularly like to blame that on millions of individuals "failing to integrate," since as so many are failing it's probably something's wrong in the system itself.

May be the Europeans could, I don't know, set quotas and enforce some of the laws they already have, for example! :idea2:

Or better yet, actually try to integrate the people by means of economic stimulation and breaking down social barriers!

In the end, it's never really the oft-blamed culture but the oft-existing economic and social malaise that turns a person into a problem for his or her society. If your society simply can't adapt to the massive increase in population over a short period of time (a problem in every case anyway, immigration-driven or viagra-driven), then don't. Stop the flood, repair the mess, then reopen.

(Not that I don't appreciate the difficulty of the problem, per se; I'm just sayin' it in broad paints.)

[Rodion Romanovich]

The Chinese manufacturing empire and its slaving workers with piss-poor pays?

Aren't you essentially complaining about that in your other post?
I haven't researched individual companies such as wal-mart. If they do such things well then they are bad guys, but as long as there are no laws against it they're no worse than any others doing it. However if they prevent politicians with programs of removing such exploitation by passing laws, they're evil. The companies that do lobbyist stuff to affect politics are a problem yes, but that a result of a weakened democracy.



Hence I said impossible: outsourcing allows companies to sell products for very low prices, and like hell Americans are going to suddenly get all protectionist and willing to pay more for less for the sake of whatever grand plans the World Leaders have for humanity.

Well the desire for low cost products might be due to low wages and high taxes from the US government. Or if they despite that think they have to exploit other countries people then they can't really expect any third world countries to think they're nice, and can't have any decent chance at all of stopping terrorism, seeing as terrorism is the only way for the third world to fight back. That's sad, because I'm strongly against terrorism and think it should be solved by removing the causes of it.



Pardon me, but as an immigrant myself (and with all the assorted culture shock, yadda yadda etcetera) I don't particularly think you're blaming the right goat here. In fact, you said it yourself in this very post what is the cause of people suffering serious problems in their new countries: ghettos. Ghettos: oppression, low quality of life, inability to expand the horizons, inability to receive wide contact with the "home" civilization, everyday dangers, everyday economic depressions, and so on and so forth. Why do you think French natural-born citizens -- thugs as they were -- were trying to burn Paris to the ground some months ago? I personally don't remember any Vietnamese war refugee riots in the West Coast.

I fail to see what you're upset about in my post. May I ask you whether you're a refugee from war or a luxury-seeking type of immigrant from not so poor regions? The ghettos are a result of these immigrants not being given the right and needed assistance to learn the local language to break their isolation, and a result of many who come from warring countries being apathic and in need of comfort like therapy and life strategy help to learn the bureaucracy of the country they come to. Most employers don't want to hire people who don't know the language. Call them racist or not, it's a fact and no government has been able to prevent that. Giving them knowledge of the language helps them more than anything.



If that so happens I probably won't be here, since last I checked Thailand wasn't exactly a war-ravaged country. A pedophile haven with serious corruption problems and political syndicates with ministers being fronts for prostitution/drugs/bootlegging mafia empires, way too many conservatives in a very traditionalist sense, and a general lack of anything realistically considered as Freedom of Speech, may be, but certainly not war-ravaged, especially compare to the likes of Mianmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

Well luxury-seeking immigrants that have a decent life must realize that there are people who have a worse situation and must be given the immigration placs. Immigrants must also realize that the ultimate objective isn't to have the entire world living in Europe and America, but to make the third world inhabitable, stable, and peaceful so people can move back there. Sending foreign aid saves about 1,000 people for the same cost it takes to provide a luxury-seeking immigrant with money. It's a matter of helping those who need it most. And the ultimate objective is that these refugees can go home and rebuild their countries. Immigration for luxury is not desireable. We can help most people by sending aid money and use wise foreign politics that minimizes war and instability in the third world, while having a program where immigrants are to be sent back to help building up their countries. Nobody gains anything from having the few educated people in the third world moving to the western world - those who have education in these countries should stay there and help building up their countries. By accepting luxury-immigration instead of helping refugees, we decrease our abilities of helping the people who have the most difficult situation, and we also help undermining and destroying the third world. Such egoism is unacceptable. Not all people are aware of how this works however and now that we know that it works this way the information must be spread. Those who have already come to the western world must of course stay because they didn't know (and neither did the (ir)responsible western governments), but all future luxury immigration must be stopped as quickly as possible. Trying to stand in the way of such politics is to support the death of the refugees that have the worst situation of all.



I don't particularly like to blame that on millions of individuals "failing to integrate," since as so many are failing it's probably something's wrong in the system itself.

I blame it mostly on our governments for thinking that mass-immigration into ghettos and isolating immigrants there would cause integration. Also their failure to stop luxury-immigrants to give room for the refugees that have the most difficult situation.

[AntiochusIII]

I haven't researched individual companies such as wal-mart. If they do such things well then they are bad guys, but as long as there are no laws against it they're no worse than any others doing it. However if they prevent politicians with programs of removing such exploitation by passing laws, they're evil. The companies that do lobbyist stuff to affect politics are a problem yes, but that a result of a weakened democracy.You can call them evil all you want (and quite a few people do, certainly), but in the end they wins out with their cheap goods and large shares of the economic pie. Nobody wants to destabilize the economic pie for moral reasons. The economy is mainly driven by market forces, of which profit is the very heart of it all, and profit can be better gained by outsourcing to countries with less wages and less "annoying" regulatory laws overall.

Heck, even Futurama and Family Guy are outsourced to Korea.

Besides, if the likes of the Rwandan genocide does not interest the average American, how would something like bad conditions in shiny new Chinese factories ever worry them? (They'll worry about those shiny new Chinese factories taking jobs away, though. ~:) )

Well the desire for low cost products might be due to low wages and high taxes from the US government. Or if they despite that think they have to exploit other countries people then they can't really expect any third world countries to think they're nice, and can't have any decent chance at all of stopping terrorism, seeing as terrorism is the only way for the third world to fight back. That's sad, because I'm strongly against terrorism and think it should be solved by removing the causes of it.Or it might be something simpler, say, human desire for the most out of the least. When people buy stuff, they don't think about international social implications and all that, but which one is the cheapest.

I don't really think those that argue that this will cause the downfall of Western Civilization to be on firm grounds, though.

I fail to see what you're upset about in my post. May I ask you whether you're a refugee from war or a luxury-seeking type of immigrant from not so poor regions? The ghettos are a result of these immigrants not being given the right and needed assistance to learn the local language to break their isolation, and a result of many who come from warring countries being apathic and in need of comfort like therapy and life strategy help to learn the bureaucracy of the country they come to. Most employers don't want to hire people who don't know the language. Call them racist or not, it's a fact and no government has been able to prevent that. Giving them knowledge of the language helps them more than anything.I'm upset? Not at all. May be it's my fault for giving the wrong impression. Never mind that, the assistance you demand for immigration is all and good but they certainly aren't your weekly trip to the family's therapist, which is what you asked for in the first post, no?

Therapists imply that something's wrong with the psyche anyway, which is a pretty rare case, even among refugees from terribly devastated countries. Humans survive in much worse environments before psychology was born.

And I can tell you this: Life Strategy help = waste of time. That's not how people adapt. In terms of what one wants in life, it's always individual, always in the head. Simply walk into a high school "life strategy" (or whatever fancy names the schools come up for classes meant to "encourage students for college planning, bruhaha, lalala) and anyone will easily realize how worthless such an effort is.

Well luxury-seeking immigrants that have a decent life must realize that there are people who have a worse situation and must be given the immigration placs. Immigrants must also realize that the ultimate objective isn't to have the entire world living in Europe and America, but to make the third world inhabitable, stable, and peaceful so people can move back there. Sending foreign aid saves about 1,000 people for the same cost it takes to provide a luxury-seeking immigrant with money. It's a matter of helping those who need it most. And the ultimate objective is that these refugees can go home and rebuild their countries. Immigration for luxury is not desireable. We can help most people by sending aid money and use wise foreign politics that minimizes war and instability in the third world, while having a program where immigrants are to be sent back to help building up their countries. Nobody gains anything from having the few educated people in the third world moving to the western world - those who have education in these countries should stay there and help building up their countries. By accepting luxury-immigration instead of helping refugees, we decrease our abilities of helping the people who have the most difficult situation, and we also help undermining and destroying the third world. Such egoism is unacceptable. Not all people are aware of how this works however and now that we know that it works this way the information must be spread. Those who have already come to the western world must of course stay because they didn't know (and neither did the (ir)responsible western governments), but all future luxury immigration must be stopped as quickly as possible. Trying to stand in the way of such politics is to support the death of the refugees that have the worst situation of all.That is all moralistic and all, but that's certainly not how's the world's run. Humans are creatures driven to achieve their betterment, not concerning themselves with the fate of the world at every little decision. Civilizations aren't built on socialistic grounds; for all the glorious proclamations of We The People as one, in the end it's the personalities that make up the general will.

Another point: nations look for their own interests, not others'. The United States of America wants its immigrants to be useful, not problematic, which is why it sets quotas which are more open to, say, Taiwan, than India and the Philippines, where more immigrants want to leave.

So you can certainly call my family evil for trying to join America (I'm not upset about that at all, mind you), but in the end it's just the classic American dream -- self-betterment, drive for success, search for opportunities, hope -- with Asians instead of Eastern Europeans this time around. (Actually, it's not really our fault to blame since the USA is the one who sets the quotas on immigrants anyway, and I'm certainly not entering the USA by illegal means). And of course, the natives all angry and demand that these "job-stealers" not be given so much "privileges." The parallel is amazing for students of history.

Which is why I'm one of those few happy-go-lucky people who don't really worry about the "Mexicans" conquering the USA and weighting down "our quality of life." The very frickin' same things used to be said by the great-great-grandsons of the British settlers as more and more Italians, Germans, Poles, etcetera, flooded the factories of Chicago and New York, unable to speak English, unable to properly integrate, trapped in cycles of low poverty, and exploited literally to death by factory owners willing to gouge profit. Social efforts ("Progressive Movement", may be also the New Deal) and time eventually win that out.

I blame it mostly on our governments for thinking that mass-immigration into ghettos and isolating immigrants there would cause integration. Also their failure to stop luxury-immigrants to give room for the refugees that have the most difficult situation.The first reason is certainly valid, but I don't think the second is, for the problems with immigration in Europe.

It might be a "righteous" ethical issue and all that, valid on its own in other places, but it's not tied in with why Europe is so immigration-scared right now.

Back to the original topic, though, I certainly don't think Western Civilization is failing. The doomsayers are everywhere, at everytime, and things don't really happen that often. Barring nuclear fallout, I'll be enjoying HBO and junk food for quite a long time to come. May be Texan burgers will be less popular and Tacos more, and may be I'll have to scrap my elitism and learn Spanish later (elitism not driven against Mexicans, but against entering classes filled to the brim while I can take French and ogle at all the ladies there ~;) ), but it's not something devastating.

[Navaros]

Western Civilization is an oxymoron.

There is nothing the least bit civilized about any society which legally allows the butchering of it's babies.

Or all other manner of debauchery and evil.


how are we doing?

Pathetically. "Western Civilization" is a disgrace.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow Nav, do you have to bring that into every topic.

I think Western Civilisation lacks a serious competor, without such there is not exsternal unifying force, so the society begins to unravel.

The writing is on the Wall. Rome, Athens, The Hittites.

[AntiochusIII]

AthensAthens = no serious competitors? :inquisitive:

They were fighting teeth-to-teeth with the Spartan right in their heydays. Pericles himself died during the Peloponnesian war. I wouldn't call that city-state down for a lack of enemies.

[Papewaio]

Wow Nav, do you have to bring that into every topic.

I think Western Civilisation lacks a serious competor, without such there is not exsternal unifying force, so the society begins to unravel.

The writing is on the Wall. Rome, Athens, The Hittites.

The assumption is that Western Civilisation is a single coherent mass and that that requires competition to survive.

The first part of the assumption screams out no...think about the UN and how the various Western Democracies do not walk in lock step,

The second part is also probably wrong, even within a single democratice entity their is plenty of competion... research grants, free markets, capitalism, sports events, market share, TV audience etc.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You can call them evil all you want (and quite a few people do, certainly), but in the end they wins out with their cheap goods and large shares of the economic pie. Nobody wants to destabilize the economic pie for moral reasons. The economy is mainly driven by market forces, of which profit is the very heart of it all, and profit can be better gained by outsourcing to countries with less wages and less "annoying" regulatory laws overall.

Heck, even Futurama and Family Guy are outsourced to Korea.

Besides, if the likes of the Rwandan genocide does not interest the average American, how would something like bad conditions in shiny new Chinese factories ever worry them? (They'll worry about those shiny new Chinese factories taking jobs away, though. ~:) )

Well, then I'm afraid nothing can save western civilization. All that can be done is to slow down the inevitable self-destruction, but slowing it down will only make the enemies more angry, more bloodthirsty. It's happened before in history and it's sad that "the only thing you can learn from history is that you can't learn anything from history", whoever said that.



Or it might be something simpler, say, human desire for the most out of the least. When people buy stuff, they don't think about international social implications and all that, but which one is the cheapest.

I'm not talking about those who buy stuff, but the people who vote. As long as it's cheap you can and should buy the cheapest stuff. But you should vote for parties that try to outlaw unethical work. Once those laws have been passed you still search for the cheapest goods whenever you can. However if you DON'T vote for fighting the unethical goods and trade, then you're taking part in slavery and murder. It is sad that people like me who do want a change and do want justice shall be dragged down into the dust with such filthy people who want to exploit others. How will I feel when I must tell my children: the blood will come over your children, but also know that they're innocent, like me. Together with the unethical selfish murderers these innocents will be drawn into the dust, killed, raped, exposed to all sorts of barbary.



I'm upset? Not at all. May be it's my fault for giving the wrong impression. Never mind that, the assistance you demand for immigration is all and good but they certainly aren't your weekly trip to the family's therapist, which is what you asked for in the first post, no?

No, what makes you jump to conclusions like that? I thought I made it quite clear that the traumas of people from war ravaged countries are much more severe than anything an average western citizen can understand.



Therapists imply that something's wrong with the psyche anyway, which is a pretty rare case, even among refugees from terribly devastated countries. Humans survive in much worse environments before psychology was born.

And I can tell you this: Life Strategy help = waste of time. That's not how people adapt. In terms of what one wants in life, it's always individual, always in the head. Simply walk into a high school "life strategy" (or whatever fancy names the schools come up for classes meant to "encourage students for college planning, bruhaha, lalala) and anyone will easily realize how worthless such an effort is.

It's easy for you to say that life strategy and help doesn't help, while you're one of those who don't need help. It's the classical fascistical reasoning - you think everybody "weaker" than yourself (with a deliberately vague definition of weakness) are worthless and don't deserve to live and shouldn't get any help. I sometimes wish all people who reason that way would be struck by a lighting and become handicapped. Then perhaps they would realize the implications of what they're saying. Or throw them to the people they wish to get rid of, and see how cheeky they become then.



That is all moralistic and all, but that's certainly not how's the world's run. Humans are creatures driven to achieve their betterment, not concerning themselves with the fate of the world at every little decision.

That's why civilizations keep falling. If you don't think any further than 5 minutes ahead like an average horney and hungry monkey you can consider youself lucky for being able to build something that lasts for longer than the time between two rainstorms.



Another point: nations look for their own interests, not others'.

Ok let's take the simplest of all examples - did nazi Germany win anything from their policy of oppression? Look through history and count the number of egoists that were severely punished and compare it to the number of egoists that weren't. You forget that the enemy too is human, and will put up a decent fight. He'll learn from you crushing his rebellions, and wait until you overextend. He'll strike you when you're weakest. And the longer it takes him and the more casualties he suffer in his struggle for justice, the angrier and more brutal his revenge will be when he finally succeeds at carrying it out.



The first reason is certainly valid, but I don't think the second is, for the problems with immigration in Europe.

The key to mastering logic and science lies in being able to make more than one conclusion steps in a row rather than just making a single one.


Back to the original topic, though, I certainly don't think Western Civilization is failing. The doomsayers are everywhere, at everytime, and things don't really happen that often. Barring nuclear fallout, I'll be enjoying HBO and junk food for quite a long time to come. May be Texan burgers will be less popular and Tacos more, and may be I'll have to scrap my elitism and learn Spanish later (elitism not driven against Mexicans, but against entering classes filled to the brim while I can take French and ogle at all the ladies there ~;) ), but it's not something devastating.
Rome also thought Rome wasn't falling when the barbarians entered their cities raping and burning in the 4th and 5th centuries. The population somewhat confused wondered why the local governors had cancelled their gladiatorial games. They still had their panem (Texas burger of the time) and entertainment until the were end.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Pathetically. "Western Civilization" is a disgrace.

I agree, people who say "I think we should abuse and exploit the third world because we can, because we have the power and the big guns" aren't part of the western civilization and democracy dream - they're nothing but scum and don't deserve the fighting morale to defend themselves against the threats they've created against themselves. I say let them destroy themselves, but also let the righteous within the western countries find a way of marking themselves so that the hordes will recognize them when they begin their offensives. Let the righteous make sure the hordes only direct their wrath at the guilty, guide the hordes so that they can help the worthy and righteous within the western countries to upbear tolerance, democracy and freedom. Those who were righteous within western civilization and fought for justice and thereby the safety of both westerners and others, shall not be sacrificed along with the guilty, even if they fail to save the western world from it's self-destructive desire. Exploiting others never works, never. But this one time, the righteous shall not be slaughtered along with the unworthy when the oppressed people get the power to strike back in force. This time only those within our countries who wanted to destroy themselves and us, shouldn't be successful in anything but destroying themselves. If they wish to commit suicide, let them not drag innocents with them to their deaths.

[Samurai Waki]

There was a saying I read somewhere and went like this

"Rome wasn't built in a day, and it took more than a lifetime to fall. America was built in a day, and will likely crumble just as fast."

[yesdachi]

There was a saying I read somewhere and went like this

"Rome wasn't built in a day, and it took more than a lifetime to fall. America was built in a day, and will likely crumble just as fast."
In those terms, I don’t think America is finished being built.

[Samurai Waki]

In those terms, I don’t think America is finished being built.

Yeah. I was pretty much thinking the same when I read it. It was more food for thought than anything really.

[AntiochusIII]

Well, then I'm afraid nothing can save western civilization. All that can be done is to slow down the inevitable self-destruction, but slowing it down will only make the enemies more angry, more bloodthirsty. It's happened before in history and it's sad that "the only thing you can learn from history is that you can't learn anything from history", whoever said that.Ya, right. I'm not particularly inclined to believe that the city of Las Vegas will shut down the next day due to a very long chain of economic forces that ends up somewhere in those mighty factories in China.

You see, there aren't really any Chinese terrorists seeking to destroy the USA, more like countless Chinese businessmen welcoming the arrival of American capital with open arms. The oppression on the workers is real (How. Bloody. Ironic. For the Farmers' and Workers' Republic to be such...), but Western outsourcing is just one of the factors. If the Democracy of India and the People's Republic of China intends to secure higher quality of life for their citizens they certainly can. They don't really care. India perhaps does put some thoughts into it, if not satisfactory in action. China hopefully will once the economic prosperity (built on un-humanitarian grounds as it is) create enough pressure for political and social reforms, or even revolutions.

The world is moving towards a global economy anyway, and "civilizations" are no longer so clear cut as in the past (not that they ever were that clear, but boundaries were usually somewhere). Tell me, what is Western Civilization and where does it end?

I'm not talking about those who buy stuff, but the people who vote. As long as it's cheap you can and should buy the cheapest stuff. But you should vote for parties that try to outlaw unethical work. Once those laws have been passed you still search for the cheapest goods whenever you can. However if you DON'T vote for fighting the unethical goods and trade, then you're taking part in slavery and murder. It is sad that people like me who do want a change and do want justice shall be dragged down into the dust with such filthy people who want to exploit others. How will I feel when I must tell my children: the blood will come over your children, but also know that they're innocent, like me. Together with the unethical selfish murderers these innocents will be drawn into the dust, killed, raped, exposed to all sorts of barbary.Which party in the USA opposes any economic ties with China, one of its largest -- if not the largest -- trading partners? Some crazy redneck nativist-protectionist party somewhere?

No, what makes you jump to conclusions like that? I thought I made it quite clear that the traumas of people from war ravaged countries are much more severe than anything an average western citizen can understand.This is what you said: "c. all immigrants from war regions should be given therapy to deal with their mental problems. This would decrease the violence crimes among immigrants, which are cause of incorrect racism accusations."

How else would I interpret that? Not only that it is a false generalization in terms of the cause of crimes among immigrants, it demands something strange out of them, too. Therapy?

It's easy for you to say that life strategy and help doesn't help, while you're one of those who don't need help. It's the classical fascistical reasoning - you think everybody "weaker" than yourself (with a deliberately vague definition of weakness) are worthless and don't deserve to live and shouldn't get any help. I sometimes wish all people who reason that way would be struck by a lighting and become handicapped. Then perhaps they would realize the implications of what they're saying. Or throw them to the people they wish to get rid of, and see how cheeky they become then.Is this something of a personal attack?

Nevermind that, I'd like to say that you are dead wrong in your assumption. While you are correct in the part that I indeed hold myself responsible in things much more than I could expect others responsible for, I believe it in an almost Buddhist sense; a relic of the religion I threw away, perhaps. It is as simple as believing that, should everyone always expect themselves to be responsible, but in the same time do not demand that responsibility of others, life will be much less selfish, much less conflicting, and much more pleasant: to always have others exceed your expectation, and yet to have a goal you always expect of yourself. That's why I hold such a deep dislike for "moralists" who demand of others what they cannot achieve. Or why I don't despise, say, welfare beneficiaries as much as some here do.

To assume that I think myself superior to others is pretty offensive.

That's why civilizations keep falling. If you don't think any further than 5 minutes ahead like an average horney and hungry monkey you can consider youself lucky for being able to build something that lasts for longer than the time between two rainstorms.I don't think that's why civilizations keep failing. Metaphysics and grand generalizations on history does tend to ignore the little bits that drives history forward. What if Julian the Apostate was successful? What if Valentinian III was an active genius? What if Flavius Aetius became Emperor? What if Trajan reached India? What if Alaric, Attila, the many Theodorics, and Odoacer all died in their youths? What if Emperor Commodus was half of his father was? What if Lars Porsena became King of Rome for good? What if an anonymous ancestor of Julius Caesar was never to be?

Why do civilizations fall? A basic Gibbonesque generalization won't do anyone good. The little events that can drive the whole path another way are there for us to speculate, and even if one does not buy to such a game, the forces of history present themselves to be far more complex than such assumptions anyway.

Ok let's take the simplest of all examples - did nazi Germany win anything from their policy of oppression? Look through history and count the number of egoists that were severely punished and compare it to the number of egoists that weren't. You forget that the enemy too is human, and will put up a decent fight. He'll learn from you crushing his rebellions, and wait until you overextend. He'll strike you when you're weakest. And the longer it takes him and the more casualties he suffer in his struggle for justice, the angrier and more brutal his revenge will be when he finally succeeds at carrying it out.You believe "Western Civilization" (whatever that entity includes) systematically plan for the oppression and de-facto slavery that exists in some other countries they do business with. You also believe that there are powerful enemies of this "Western Civilization" that will not hesitate to take its place with impunity without any concerns for implications of retaliation, or economic disasters, or international chaos. I don't.

The key to mastering logic and science lies in being able to make more than one conclusion steps in a row rather than just making a single one.Except there isn't even a link, and that is not a counter argument.

Rome also thought Rome wasn't falling when the barbarians entered their cities raping and burning in the 4th and 5th centuries. The population somewhat confused wondered why the local governors had cancelled their gladiatorial games. They still had their panem (Texas burger of the time) and entertainment until the were end.Who said Rome didn't think they were going to fall? And who said the nobility of the past had anything similar to the current society?

The desperation of the Late Roman Empire ran much deeper than most give credit for. The blind luxuries of the higher classes were almost like escapism, and were exactly like the French nobility of Louis XV: bankrupt, yet luxurious. The "Monsieurs" of Dicken's masterpiece, A Tale of Two Cities, do exist in this world -- I've met a few myself, much to my disgust; filthy rich and filthily empty -- but they remain a great minority, and not the average citizen of any free nation that could generally be considered to be at the heart of this "Western Civilization," though I know not where is the fringe.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Western civilization isn't immune from the cycle that affects all successful civilizations. Basically you go from dirt poor, to fighting to the top, to prosperity, to apathy and decline, and eventually defeat

You see this is what in reality seperates the conservatives from the liberals. We know at what part of the cycle to quit and hold the status quo. If its not broke dont fix it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You see this is what in reality seperates the conservatives from the liberals. We know at what part of the cycle to quit and hold the status quo. If its not broke dont fix it.

Yes, but you've always thought it's time to quit. You thought that back in the 40's and 50's.

It's not like western civilization is doomed to fail anyway. We figured out how to get our economy out of the boom/bust cycle.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's not like western civilization is doomed to fail anyway. We figured out how to get our economy out of the boom/bust cycle.


But it is. And were our own worst enemy.


Yes, but you've always thought it's time to quit. You thought that back in the 40's and 50's.


Oh come on. Do you really think we want to go back to WW2 and a democrat in office for 4 terms? But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

[Papewaio]

But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

Internet and videos?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Internet and videos?

Im glad I didnt have them. Id be a shut in. When we played sports we actually used our bodies.

[Strike For The South]

we need to cut immagration heavily. Take the best and the brightest. I dont need my cultured cheapend and more poor people.

[AntiochusIII]

You see this is what in reality seperates the conservatives from the liberals. We know at what part of the cycle to quit and hold the status quo. If its not broke dont fix it.Status quo is defeat; it is an illusion that will leave one to slowly rot into certain oblivion.

What have the attempts to preserve status quo in history brought forth? The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Fall of the French Monarchy, the Fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate: the violent ends to status quo.

Oh come on. Do you really think we want to go back to WW2 and a democrat in office for 4 terms? But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.Oh, so the reason you want to keep the status quo is because you hate Democrats, and may be liking Ike's years more.

Yeah, that's such a good reason for it, especially when I don't think Mr. King and his "ilk" enjoyed the fifties much. I won't either; my very un-white skin color would probably make me a repressed, depressed, and perhaps even oppressed person.

Im glad I didnt have them. Id be a shut in. When we played sports we actually used our bodies.Oh, I wouldn't agree with you at all. Everyone's childhood is his or her best times. It's quite that simple.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

Haha, but of course, you're a white heterosexual male.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Status quo is defeat; it is an illusion that will leave one to slowly rot into certain oblivion.

What have the attempts to preserve status quo in history brought forth? The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Fall of the French Monarchy, the Fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate: the violent ends to status quo.


I didnt say to keep the status quo in everything. Only on certain matters like keeping marriage between a man and a woman and having smaller government. Im not against progresss but I am against progress merely in the name of progress and this is where liberals go off the track.


Oh, so the reason you want to keep the status quo is because you hate Democrats, and may be liking Ike's years more.


I hate to say it but I used to be a liberal tree hugging pot smoking liberal. Now Im just a pot smoking conservative.


Yeah, that's such a good reason for it, especially when I don't think Mr. King and his "ilk" enjoyed the fifties much. I won't either; my very un-white skin color would probably make me a repressed, depressed, and perhaps even oppressed person.


I didnt say everything was better. But in many ways blacks were still better off then than they are today.


Haha, but of course, you're a white heterosexual male.

Yeah in the 50s that was something to be proud of. Today everything is our fault.

[AntiochusIII]

I didnt say to keep the status quo in everything. Only on certain matters like keeping marriage between a man and a woman and having smaller government. Im not against progresss but I am against progress merely in the name of progress and this is where liberals go off the track.I'm not sure how those tie in with the argument to preserve status quo, since Eisenhower seemed to expand the government even further than what it was at the height of the Second World War, for all his "Dynamic Conservative" rhetoric.

And what's wrong with gay marriage, exactly?

I hate to say it but I used to be a liberal tree hugging pot smoking liberal. Now Im just a pot smoking conservative.You hugged trees. I don't have trees to hug. ~;)

I oughta love trees then, especially since I can blame the decrease in trees to the Capitalist Pigs, Global Warming, and Dick Cheney's obsession with dangerous toys. :laugh4:

'sides, smoking pot as a conservative is traitorous. What of the War on Drugs! ~;)

I didnt say everything was better. But in many ways blacks were still better off then than they are today.Like how? When they were denied from colleges, restaurants, public places, schools, jobs, and opportunities in life because of their skin colors alone, I don't see these people to be better off in those days. That is, unless anyone actually buy that crap about the separate-but-"equal" so-called "argument."

Yeah in the 50s that was something to be proud of. Today everything is our fault.Proud of? Why?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And what's wrong with gay marriage, exactly?


Thats a topic for another thread thats been hashed to death.


I oughta love trees then, especially since I can blame the decrease in trees to the Capitalist Pigs, Global Warming, and Dick Cheney's obsession with dangerous toys.


To bad this is a bunch of nonsense. We have plenty of trees in the US and global warming is a farce. Just stay away from Dick when hes hunting.


'sides, smoking pot as a conservative is traitorous. What of the War on Drugs

Any true conservative opposes the war on drugs.


Like how? When they were denied from colleges, restaurants, public places, schools, jobs, and opportunities in life because of their skin colors alone, I don't see these people to be better off in those days. That is, unless anyone actually buy that crap about the separate-but-"equal" so-called "argument."


If you look at notherrn blacks they all dressed in suits. They were married . They werent on welfare. They were proud of their communities. The kids actually knew who their daddies were. In many cases they truly were seperate but equal.


Proud of? Why?

Maybe you need a little history lesson.

[AntiochusIII]

Thats a topic for another thread thats been hashed to death.Let's both drop the point, then.

To bad this is a bunch of nonsense. We have plenty of trees in the US and global warming is a farce. Just stay away from Dick when hes hunting.Of course I was joking, and Global Warming is an issue too complex to be dismissed (or obsessed, for that matter) over, tied into a lot of things that might not have that much to do with how hot the world is, but still very significant in terms of how livable this little planet is.

Just don't mistake me for someone calling for reduction in emissions without learning the facts as much as possible.

Any true conservative opposes the war on drugs.So does any true liberal.

If you look at notherrn blacks they all dressed in suits. They were married . They werent on welfare. They were proud of their communities. The kids actually knew who their daddies were. In many cases they truly were seperate but equal.Yeah right. "If you look at the northern blacks." You just happen to forget to look at the vast, vast majority of the black population in the United States, who in the fifties were lynched, hanged, in de-facto slavery, suffered from a lack of justice, of freedom, of respect for humanity, despite a century of struggles. Wasn't it some bloody, bloody, terrible case of lynching that provoked a huge outrage that could be considered to catapult the Civil Rights movement just a hundred days prior to Rosa Parks' famous disobedience? An innocent young boy from the North was dragged out of the house of his relatives that he was visiting, tortured mercilessly, lynched cruelly, and thrown into a river. The criminals -- assholes they are, and I daresay this "bad word" ought to be allowed for such creatures -- are still alive, I think, and free; because some judges thought society ought to put the [n-word; I've pushed the rules enough] down.

I couldn't remember the name of the case, or of the boy who died*, or of the two pieces of dirt who were responsible for the hate crime. It happened in good ol' Mississippi, by the way. The poor Chicago boy only received wide public interest because he was a child from the north, whose parents were free to cry in the open of such an injustice; and not an ex-slave's grandson whose entire life was spent in what his grandfather was technically freed from a century earlier. That grandson would be lynched and silenced forever; and in the fifties, nobody would care.

*Edit: Emmett Till is the boy's name.

Call that a good life to be black.

I don't see how you're going to deny the fact that it totally sucked to be born a wrong kind of person in the fifties. It was not all paradise. I would shudder to be there, and I'm not even black.

Maybe you need a little history lesson.May be I do, since I personally don't see how the tone of my melanin presents anything particularly worthy to be pride over. Actions over appearances for me, I think.

Back to topic: From my point of view, Western Civilization -- again, whatever this term includes -- is far from failing; instead, I think it is still developing, and may be would no longer be a Western Civilization, but that of the world itself.

[KafirChobee]

From what I have read thus far - excluding the off topic tangents - the most disputed points about the continuation of WC are:
1) Sharing the wealth with developing nations and the WC's poor (unlikely due to the influx of the neuvo-aristocrats, and the political organizations dependent upon there support).
2) The decline in the infrastructures of the developed nations. In the USA, the RR's are not sound, the rails are out and out dangerous. Due to the "pork" in our highway bills, some states (blue at the moment) are literally falling into disrepair. Forget about talking about water and sewage - I once read that 40 - 60% of our water supply in unsafe. Maybe why the bottled water industry exists at all.
3) The new fear of immigration, in the West - senseless, but a great political button to push to convince the ignorant that poor, uneducated, migrant workers want your job (as though a white person would work in the fields). 4) Going to war without defined guildlines, or cause. Well, some times.

Prior to the depression - 1929-1938 - 70% of the USA population lived on family farms. Today, less than 1-3% do (depending upon definition). Manufacturing jobs that once allowed a worker to be a part of the working-middle-class are either being outsourced, being replaced by robotics, or are being downsized to such a level that only 1 in 3 will remain by 2015.

Wages for the working class are not keeping pace with the upper-business class. The average wage is less today that it was in 1996, for the average household. However, The upper-business classes wages have quadrupled - hell, CEO's wages are those of kings (40 times the average worker in 1987, and 300-400 times that today.).

What the WC nations have today is pretty much the same thing Rome had in its heyday - the senatorial rule being doled out to the rich and powerful ... by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful, to the exclusion of as many as possible.

Common sense would tell anyone that by sharing the wealth one easily reduces the poverty, crime, welfare, and envy. It also permits those willing to sacrifice for their future the opportunity to better their position in the stratus of society. But, no .... life isn't suppose to be fair - and by god the wealthy seem to be willing to risk it all versus sharing a dime of what they inherited.

The decline in Unions, due to their complacency and their leaders willingness to be bought off, has a direct impact to the plight of the non-Union worker. This I know (having worked in a machinist union and postal one), there is power in numbers - and safety, and health insurance.

Point is, the more basic privelages (like living decently) that are taken away from or deprived a society - the higher the rate of crime, of anger, of possible retaliation in the future - or now. Imagine for one second what could have actually been done to prevent 9/11 - starting 50 years ago, versus our short term thinking of blaming it on a two year period (when in fact it took 5 years to plan, and 2 more to carry it out).

Imperialism, Nationalism, identifying with one faction against another (time honored), Religonistic hyperbole with political agendas, the idea of a sacred privilaged class (theirs primarily, but they do it oh so well!), and the buying of elections (it now cost a minimum of $1 million to win a HR seat, $5-10mil for a senate, and $500,000,000 for president). minimum wage has not been raised since 1998? But, our reps have given themselves increases of 40% in the same time frame.

Decline of the WC? Well, maybe. Probably. But, those with the power won't realize it until some wildman steps forward (again) and says, "Political power comes from the barrell of a gun".

I seriouly doubt we will see a decline in the wages of CEO's (etc), before we see more of a decline in the working-middle-class. You see, what they forget is that the WMC is their buffer against the disenfranchised poor. They lose the men and women (their sons and daughters) that worked on the production lines to make a decent living for their kids - then they lose, or the majority of us move into slavery. And, that ain't going to happen - even if it is in S. Korea, China, etc.

Bottom line, share or perish. Greed kills.