Western Civilization.

[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.

'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.