The Fall of the West

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

The Fall of the West

Post by Russell Parr » Wed May 04, 2016 9:34 am

Anyone paying modicum of attention can tell that the Western world is in a state of decline. From the erosion of morality, to the surge of terrorism, to the unceasing growth of debt and bailouts, to absurdity of modern day politics, something is clearly "going wrong" in the West.

The Four Horsemen is an interesting documentary that covers the issues as to what is going on, and why. Perhaps the most interesting part is the first 20 minutes. Beginning around 7:50 mark, is a description of the "lifecycles of empires," defined by 6 ages. The last of which, "the age of decadence," fittingly describes the state of matters in America.

The documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU

Any thoughts or other relevant links to videos, articles, etc. are welcome.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 04, 2016 5:19 pm

It's an interesting topic, for example I'm reading right now the book The Next 100 Years from George Friedman (known for Stratfor) which goes into some speculation and prediction on the developments, many of which appear to be rather scary and gloomy.

However, to understand a topic, also the complete opposite needs to be stated (if possible, reasonably) just to get some contrast. This I'll do here first.

What decline are we talking bout? Is the Western world not breaking all records when it comes to:

- decline of diseases
- increase of longevity
- decline of wars
- decline of violence
- near universal decrease in overall levels of crime
- increase of living by law
- increase of living standards
- developing technology
- scientific advances, knowledge

And are all indices, even those created by non-Western agencies, not dominated by Western countries, like those on safety, health, freedoms, happiness? Without any tendency for any shift of some kind in the rankings?

Now we can phrase decline in terms of sanity, overall rationality or dependency on feel-good chemical, the quality of art and so on. But if we do so, it should be more clearly stated what we mean by that. Complaints about "erosion of morality" have been voiced since there are written records in any civilization (decline as rule?), terrorism is certainly there but still pales to the massive, ugly wars the West were engaged in with each other in earlier centuries so in which way it's worse? While the unceasing growth of debt and bailouts seem to be a feature of the system and opinions vary between economists if it's even a bad thing ultimately. As for the absurdity of modern day politics, that's a matter or perspective. And I would suggest the past always looks saner to us than the present; there are reasons (might go into that later) why this can appear to our mind, so there's that.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun May 29, 2016 8:31 pm

The most obvious and forceful social dynamic in the Western world is feminism. At least at a localised if not global level. Islam is slowly inculcating itself in "Western" culture driven by feminist and insane SJW worldviews, which is beyond ironic.

The real question, possibly transcending politics, is can civilization actually inhere when the feminine mind rules.

All the evidence says no. But can we conceive of a situation where we might see some intermediate ground between feminine and masculine impulses such that it works for our species' survival?

Not right now, for sure, because the political war against the masculine is winning hands down.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 8:51 pm

Oh my god, it's alive!

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun May 29, 2016 8:56 pm

That's a matter of opinion.

SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by SeekerOfWisdom » Sun May 29, 2016 9:03 pm

H8 to break it to you. But you're not going to die.

It's "the good news".

Notta thing gonna change for you when the beaper goes flat. (Well, nothing important)

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun May 29, 2016 10:56 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:The real question, possibly transcending politics, is can civilization actually inhere when the feminine mind rules.
If history is anything to do by, some degree of decadence is to be expected at the later sunset stage of civilisations. Like rot in some old tree trunk. The feminine mind "eats its own children" so to speak. And then complains about it (as in "culture of complaint").

Transcending the obviously debatable interpretations of politics and history, the question could be raised if civilisations, so far, have not been developed only despite copious volumes of ignorance but actually has run on its fire (desire) like some engine.

For all I know the blooming of civilisation was to create a cradle suitable for a few wise men to incidentally realize its nature.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:47 am

I literally didn't realise this part of the forum still exists!
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:However, to understand a topic, also the complete opposite needs to be stated (if possible, reasonably) just to get some contrast. This I'll do here first.
To understand a topic, the complete opposite absolutely does not need to be stated.
terrorism is certainly there but still pales to the massive, ugly wars the West were engaged in with each other in earlier centuries so in which way it's worse?
In the previous century itself, actually. Two wars that were actually a single war that destroyed European civilization for good and paved the way for American hegemony over Europe. Were they even necessary? Many place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Central Powers/Axis, while admonishing the Allies only insofar as they were harsh in terms of *retribution*.

More reasonable people say that WWI was absolutely avoidable and only the stupidity and greed of the powers-that-be caused it. Others, who are even more reasonable, say that it was not, in fact, avoidable, but not because the bad guys wanted it, but rather because it was a time when the paths of development followed by several nations/empires culminated and clashed with each other. Germany, for example, was an industrial powerhouse desperately short of the one resource that was required to develop modern industry, and therefore dependent on rivals for the trade or exchange of the same. England and France no longer enjoyed the happy guarantees of the Victorian era, and their empires (especially that of the former) were unstable and stagnant. The USA, despite its massive land, resources and industrial capacity was a second-rate power that desperately sought an opportunity to play with the big boys (or rather, prove that it already *was* a big boy). And of course Austria-Hungary and Turkey were both ex-big boys who were now doddering grandmas that the real big boys tipped their hats to out of respect and pity. Russia was an overextended and poorly managed superpower.

Wars never have anything to do with political ideology, religion or anything resembling them. If they do, then they are short, regional, mostly bloodless and uninteresting. All the major wars in history are simply opportunities for the people who run the world to move their pieces around, in other words, make sudden and swift changes to how their country is run or how big it is. In terms of the unwashed, they are moments of choice between the parched grass on one's own lawn and that on the other side, which nearly always looks greener. The winners win overwhelmingly and the losers lose likewise.

The reason why the above view of war is not prevalent is precisely because of the previously stated fact - the winners win so overwhelmingly that it's no longer a matter of anyone *daring* to contradict their account of events but of pretty much everyone being *convinced* that their account of events is more or less true. This is also the reason why Hitler is the universal bad guy and even questioning the death toll of the holocaust in certain countries is illegal. And as well, why 90% of high school graduates will know about the holocaust but probably fewer than 10% about the Kandyan "wars" conducted by the British in Sri Lanka.
While the unceasing growth of debt and bailouts seem to be a feature of the system and opinions vary between economists if it's even a bad thing ultimately. As for the absurdity of modern day politics, that's a matter or perspective. And I would suggest the past always looks saner to us than the present; there are reasons (might go into that later) why this can appear to our mind, so there's that.
At this point the debt *is* the system, at least the one recognised by the people who run it. The real system will continue operating after the fake one collapses, but for the latter to collapse there has to be war, because it would require the removal from power of the people who recognise the legitimacy of the fake system. So it will be a war of legitimacy except involving currencies and central banks instead of bloodlines - the original dollar as Plantagenet, the modern fiat dollar as Lancaster and the renminbi, ruble, rupee etc. as the various pretenders.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:04 pm

jupiviv wrote:I literally didn't realise this part of the forum still exists!
It has recently been re-created. Actually it was just renamed to "Helpdesk" in the past. And its purpose is, obviously, uncertain :)
Diebert wrote:However, to understand a topic, also the complete opposite needs to be stated (if possible, reasonably) just to get some contrast. This I'll do here first.
To understand a topic, the complete opposite absolutely does not need to be stated.
It doesn't matter, you'll invoke it just the same. :)
terrorism is certainly there but still pales to the massive, ugly wars the West were engaged in with each other in earlier centuries so in which way it's worse?
In the previous century itself, actually.
What's the difference between "earlier centuries" and "previous century"?
Two wars that were actually a single war that destroyed European civilization for good and paved the way for American hegemony over Europe.
Many Europeans were already convinced before the world wars, that European civilization was ending. It's clear the future and momentum lied at the time with the States and the Japanese. Germany then became a counter-movement against the decline, seeking actually alignment with both. My sense is that UK/France outmanoeuvred all that but during WW2 even needed "evil" pact with Stalin to finally pacify the continent. And despite all that we're now back at Germany as centre of Europe economical life, with France in alignment and UK in growing political disarray (the "long decline" finally coming to fruit). Cracks appear all over the place.
All the major wars in history are simply opportunities for the people who run the world to move their pieces around, in other words, make sudden and swift changes to how their country is run or how big it is.
It seems like a central function to statehood not countries. Name a major war, I'll name you the state being protected or expanded.
At this point the debt *is* the system, at least the one recognised by the people who run it.
Credit is linked to belief, to a future wealth and expansion. When that faith stops, even briefly, credit crunches and structures collapse. That's why these days, revolutions, wars of "liberation", countries in "transformation" become vital to the faith in future markets and expansion. This way the whole system (its "super state of being") can remain in existence, which is fundamentally illusionary.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:06 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Many Europeans were already convinced before the world wars, that European civilization was ending. It's clear the future and momentum lied at the time with the States and the Japanese. Germany then became a counter-movement against the decline, seeking actually alignment with both. My sense is that UK/France outmanoeuvred all that but during WW2 even needed "evil" pact with Stalin to finally pacify the continent. And despite all that we're now back at Germany as centre of Europe economical life, with France in alignment and UK in growing political disarray (the "long decline" finally coming to fruit). Cracks appear all over the place.
Germany may have won WW2 if Hitler wasn't a moron. But even had they won, they would probably still have to play second fiddle to the Russians. It would still be a bipolar world, with the USSR instead of the USA having the edge.

In modern times, the strictly political problem is one of leadership. Western Europe is basically a vassal of the US, and the people running the US aren't much concerned about the interests of the European people at heart. So the decisions they tell their European puppets to make are more often than not harmful to the people who "elect" them. Take this refugee mess - why are all those people being let in, given that a) the native populations haven't been consulted as to whether they should be let in b) they can never be integrated economically given the current and most likely future state of European economies c) will inevitably clash with the natives because most of them seem to be desperate young men trying to survive in a strange place, not to mention cultural and racial tensions?

Some of my oldest friends are Muslims, but they look like me, talk like me and more or less think like me (superficially speaking). The main difference is/was religion, and it was for me and others the reason why jokes about "smooth poles" and small chunks of meat always got them mad to our great amusement. However, that is not the case with the Muslims seeking refuge in Europe, and that's a problem no one seems to recognise. It's either let's invite them all in and realise the multicultural utopia, or, they're all goat-fuckers who disapprove of skimpy clothing because they want to rape and beat up women. Madness.

Anyways, maybe *not* letting them in will make certain people question *why* they are coming there in the first place, which could lead to other questions about the kind of friends one chooses to ally with or support. And maybe those questions will lead to certain agendas being disturbed/endangered.
All the major wars in history are simply opportunities for the people who run the world to move their pieces around, in other words, make sudden and swift changes to how their country is run or how big it is.
It seems like a central function to statehood not countries. Name a major war, I'll name you the state being protected or expanded.
It doesn't really matter whose "function" it is. It is about resource acquisition from enemies and forcing rapid change on subjects. I don't subscribe to the view that war is something unnatural or unnecessary. Given human nature and the nature of the world, it *is* necessary and natural. I also don't think it is some kind of "default" (inherent) state, since most wars will stop if most people were to magically become wise one happy morning. The main problem with most thinking about this issue seems to be not enough wisdom, and thus the inability to accept the fact that ultimately every *individual* has to change for the better. The focus instead is on "solutions" that either suppress or circumvent the problem, like Orwell speaking through Goldstein about a slightly modified version of the socialist delusion/dream about machines doing everything and the unwashed wallowing in free shit.
At this point the debt *is* the system, at least the one recognised by the people who run it.
Credit is linked to belief, to a future wealth and expansion. When that faith stops, even briefly, credit crunches and structures collapse. That's why these days, revolutions, wars of "liberation", countries in "transformation" become vital to the faith in future markets and expansion. This way the whole system (its "super state of being") can remain in existence, which is fundamentally illusionary.
I think many people in the West, if not most, have lost faith in the system at this point. The problem is that credit is not controlled by "many" people, since economic disparity in the US for example is worse than in the gilded age. The people who believe in the fake credit and strive to preserve its status are precisely the ones who benefit *geometrically* more than the other 99% from believing in it. Who'd have thought it eh?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:56 pm

jupiviv wrote:But even had they [Germans] won, they would probably still have to play second fiddle to the Russians. It would still be a bipolar world, with the USSR instead of the USA having the edge.
Since the beef of the war between 1941-1944 was between Germany and USSR, if the Germans had "won", the USSR would have had to lose and become seriously crippled. No way they could have dominated anything after such war. But somehow Hitler didn't think the US would work with the USSR to crush Germany between them. It was an insane move, something his mind, so attached to his version of rationality, while ignoring his own emotional attachment to his pet project, was ignoring despite many advices from people around him.
Western Europe is basically a vassal of the US, and the people running the US aren't much concerned about the interests of the European people at heart. So the decisions they tell their European puppets to make are more often than not harmful to the people who "elect" them.
I'm not such a fan of thinking in terms of conspiracies and "they" running things here or there. It seems more about ruling ideologies, shared amongst many at both sides of the ocean. The best name I've heard is Atlantism, or Trans-Atlantism. A mixture of modernity, universalism and humanitarianism. Many in the political and commercial elites are captured by it but not everyone. There's actually a rather serious split which one can see being played out at the various election and referendum processes in Europe and the US.
However, that is not the case with the Muslims seeking refuge in Europe, and that's a problem no one seems to recognise. It's either let's invite them all in and realise the multicultural utopia, or, they're all goat-fuckers who disapprove of skimpy clothing because they want to rape and beat up women.
The reality here is not like your version. There are in fact quite a few Christians amongst the Syrian refugees and on top of that the stream consists of many Africans as well. From Eritrea or Ethiopia, but also Kosovo. Not to mention children. But even when these all would be counted as muslim, the majority of immigration in my country is even during this period still largely Christian overall. Muslim immigration is and will remain just one part of the overall flux.

That doesn't mean I somehow think this mass migration wave into Europe is a good idea. It's very destabilizing and not good for anyone involved but that's caused in my view by inherent cultural and social weaknesses already present in European societies, getting worse by the decade. Something so fractioned and non-stop drinking ideological Kool-Aid will not be able to deal with these changes, no matter how good or bad those changes in theory could be.
since most wars will stop if most people were to magically become wise one happy morning.
Most wars are going on because people wake up every morning thinking they're wise enough to make those decisions on life and death.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:55 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:But even had they [Germans] won, they would probably still have to play second fiddle to the Russians. It would still be a bipolar world, with the USSR instead of the USA having the edge.
Since the beef of the war between 1941-1944 was between Germany and USSR, if the Germans had "won", the USSR would have had to lose and become seriously crippled. No way they could have dominated anything after such war. But somehow Hitler didn't think the US would work with the USSR to crush Germany between them. It was an insane move, something his mind, so attached to his version of rationality, while ignoring his own emotional attachment to his pet project, was ignoring despite many advices from people around him.
I was implying that Germany and Russia would be allied, which was supposed to be the natural progression from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Without an eastern front, Germany could have invaded Britain (a combined air-sea operation, with U-boats raiding supply lines to Britain and German air superiority over British skies enabling airborne invasion and supply). But as you say, Hitler had other things in mind.
Western Europe is basically a vassal of the US, and the people running the US aren't much concerned about the interests of the European people at heart. So the decisions they tell their European puppets to make are more often than not harmful to the people who "elect" them.
I'm not such a fan of thinking in terms of conspiracies and "they" running things here or there. It seems more about ruling ideologies, shared amongst many at both sides of the ocean. The best name I've heard is Atlantism, or Trans-Atlantism. A mixture of modernity, universalism and humanitarianism. Many in the political and commercial elites are captured by it but not everyone. There's actually a rather serious split which one can see being played out at the various election and referendum processes in Europe and the US.
It isn't a conspiracy because it is a plainly discernible fact. For example, a few (former) editors of European newspapers have said that European media toe the Washington line. The European Union also does so, quite obviously. And why does NATO even exist despite the fact the USSR is no more? So "they" do run Europe, although "they" likely have competing motivations and goals among "themselves".
However, that is not the case with the Muslims seeking refuge in Europe, and that's a problem no one seems to recognise. It's either let's invite them all in and realise the multicultural utopia, or, they're all goat-fuckers who disapprove of skimpy clothing because they want to rape and beat up women.
The reality here is not like your version. There are in fact quite a few Christians amongst the Syrian refugees and on top of that the stream consists of many Africans as well. From Eritrea or Ethiopia, but also Kosovo. Not to mention children. But even when these all would be counted as muslim, the majority of immigration in my country is even during this period still largely Christian overall. Muslim immigration is and will remain just one part of the overall flux.
Even if they are Christians (from non-European nations), the other problems I mentioned (lack of ample economic and cultural integration) still remain. After a certain point *any* immigration is bound to add to the strain on the economy, especially if the immigrants are aboard the "gravy train". The real danger is tribalism as political force rather than just a fringe, which it already has become (viz. Le Pen and that German guy who "ironically" posed as Hitler). The more diverse, the more tribal.
since most wars will stop if most people were to magically become wise one happy morning.
Most wars are going on because people wake up every morning thinking they're wise enough to make those decisions on life and death.
If they really made wisdom (albeit distorted/incomplete) the basis of their decisions they'd stop eventually.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:55 pm

jupiviv wrote:Without an eastern front, Germany could have invaded Britain (a combined air-sea operation, with U-boats raiding supply lines to Britain and German air superiority over British skies enabling airborne invasion and supply). But as you say, Hitler had other things in mind.
Indeed. And there's no indication at all that an invasion of Britain was ever part of the thought process at all. It wouldn't make sense considering Hitler's rather clear goals and concerns. Even the V2 operation was meant to push back any plans for any potential Allied invasion or fleet build-up.
It isn't a conspiracy because it is a plainly discernible fact. For example, a few (former) editors of European newspapers have said that European media toe the Washington line. The European Union also does so, quite obviously. And why does NATO even exist despite the fact the USSR is no more? So "they" do run Europe, although "they" likely have competing motivations and goals among "themselves".
So a few former newspapers editors are your source of plain discernible facts. Right...

Perhaps you can take it from someone actually reading thos European newspapers every day, that it's not so black and white. What's quite clear though is that the Atlantistic ideology rules at the EU leadership and around half of the current patchwork governments of countries in Western Europe. It's all in motion though.
Even if they are Christians (from non-European nations), the other problems I mentioned (lack of ample economic and cultural integration) still remain. After a certain point *any* immigration is bound to add to the strain on the economy, especially if the immigrants are aboard the "gravy train". The real danger is tribalism as political force rather than just a fringe, which it already has become (viz. Le Pen and that German guy who "ironically" posed as Hitler). The more diverse, the more tribal.
That's true enough although immigration as such has been of all ages, fuelling some of the great economical development in Europe in the past as well as present. The problem is right now the darker outlook of the economy as seen through the eyes of most citizens and especially the types of reform the leadership increasingly desires of their people: way more mobility in terms of jobs and housing, higher skills, less certainty based on past accomplishments, more competition, more change, more borrowing, more debts, more social participation and so on.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Sun Jun 19, 2016 5:47 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Indeed. And there's no indication at all that an invasion of Britain was ever part of the thought process at all. It wouldn't make sense considering Hitler's rather clear goals and concerns. Even the V2 operation was meant to push back any plans for any possible invasion and fleet build-up.
Well the German high command did want to attack Britain and maintain the treaties with the USSR (Operation Seeloewe), but apparently Hitler didn't. Stalin certainly didn't have any intention of invading Germany, at least not before the Red Army was reorganised.
It isn't a conspiracy because it is a plainly discernible fact. For example, a few (former) editors of European newspapers have said that European media toe the Washington line. The European Union also does so, quite obviously. And why does NATO even exist despite the fact the USSR is no more? So "they" do run Europe, although "they" likely have competing motivations and goals among "themselves".
So a few former newspapers editors are your source of plain discernible facts. Right...
Found the link after a google search:

http://readersupportednews.org/news-sec ... f-major-ge

Also, I don't base my conclusion on that fact only. Other people, like for example a couple of former European heads of state, have also said similar things. There is also the fact, for example, that the forerunner of the EU (ACUE) was a creation of the forerunner of the CIA (OSS). Oh, and the fact that European leaders never take a stand against Washington, like when they start revolutions in the Ukraine or a naval buildup in the Black Sea.
Perhaps you can take it from someone actually reading a dozen European newspapers every day, that you're wrong. What's true though is that the Atlantistic ideology rules at the EU leadership and around half of the current patchwork governments of countries in Western Europe. It's all in motion though.
I'm honestly surprised you think reading a dozen newspapers is equal to being well-informed. I don't trust *any* media (mainstream or alternative). That's not to say I assume they're always lying. It's like the attitude I would have towards someone who has repeatedly lied to me in the past. All that said, though, I do place a limited amount of trust upon a few publications like the Financial Times, an Indian national paper called the Statesman and the Trends Journal by a man called Gerald Celente.

So if you want to call me a conspiracy theorist, at least do not lump me in the pile that thinks commies, Jews or lizards rule the world, because I don't belong in it. Ironically those types of people also believe that ideology/religion/theory, rather than necessity, greed and status-seeking lead to confluences of the mighty.
although immigration as such has been of all ages, fuelling some of the great economical development in Europe in the past as well as present.
In the right circumstances, sure. For example, the Europeans basically got the vast expanse and wealth of the Americas for free, and so massive immigration was sustainable. However, it seems to me that much of the economic development of our day is phony. When/how does it stop being phony, or at least becomes less phony? I have no idea, but it's going to happen in the near future.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:38 am

And irony ironies, as we have this discussion, a brave martyr emerges to save Britain (and also the Dow it seems) from the abyss of the Brexit! Just coinciding by the way with the Orlando shootings. What are we to make of it all? "Interesting" times to be sure.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-2 ... lls-losses

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:33 pm

jupiviv wrote:Oh, and the fact that European leaders never take a stand against Washington, like when they start revolutions in the Ukraine or a naval buildup in the Black Sea.
While I agree with your description of the situation in the Ukraine, which was clearly a pre-cooked joined EU-US operation initially, at surface levels at least, there are enough examples of the opposite as well. Like with the Gulf War, where Germany and France resisted and didn't join the military operation and remained highly critical. Hence the "freedom fries" as France even would have vetoed at the Security Counsel if it would ever have gone there. Also Spain pulled out of the coalition later, after an election. This example already invalidates your claim "never take a stand". Of course the question would be then: was it a meaningful stand?

Another time more recently was when Hollande and Merkel openly disagreed with the US on Minsk 2 and somewhat sided with Putin, clearly moving a bit away from Washington. It seems like a complex chess board with Putin actually trying to exploit these rifts to benefit Russia's position.
I'm honestly surprised you think reading a dozen newspapers is equal to being well-informed.
That was not what I wrote, this was about your claim that "European media toes the Washington line". This (as blanket statement) is not my experience when actually being exposed to those media (and enough other alternative sources). You're now translating that to a claim of "being well-informed" by these newspapers. That was not the point, the point was about toeing the Washington line as some kind of summary of all leading European media. I don't think so. For example Wikileaks cooperated closely with the Guardian and Der Spiegel to disseminate documents the US really didn't want to see published at all. Same with Snowden, the Guardian was even raided by the government and drives were smashed. These are "leading newspapers" in Europe.
although immigration as such has been of all ages, fuelling some of the great economical development in Europe in the past as well as present.
In the right circumstances, sure. For example, the Europeans basically got the vast expanse and wealth of the Americas for free, and so massive immigration was sustainable. However, it seems to me that much of the economic development of our day is phony. When/how does it stop being phony, or at least becomes less phony? I have no idea, but it's going to happen in the near future.
I was referring to earlier ages actually. The phony wealth is part of the American system, the one which operates by bubbles, credit clouds and belief in never-ending progress and expansion. Undying optimism. Which is a great, almost magical engine to a certain point. The point where it's not true any more but the train rolls on. And I do think the Europeans are a bit earlier in realizing this. Also the effects arrive earlier here since the momentum (size) is simply less and therefore it's all slowing down quicker. Trust is fading and unity is falling.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:34 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Of course the question would be then: was it a meaningful stand?
Such internal politics are to be expected in feudal systems, and yes the "never" was a careless hyperbole on my part.
Another time more recently was when Hollande and Merkel openly disagreed with the US on Minsk 2 and somewhat sided with Putin, clearly moving a bit away from Washington. It seems like a complex chess board with Putin actually trying to exploit these rifts to benefit Russia's position.
Their voters don't want a war with Russia, which seems to be Washington's objective. Again I'm not saying there is no representation at all, or no infighting at all, but the NATO edifice as I describe nevertheless exists.
That was not the point, the point was about toeing the Washington line as some kind of summary of all leading European media.
A summary, by definition, is not exhaustive. Besides, good propaganda always seems unbiased and eager to deconstruct. Small truths are bait for big lies. Anyways, can you name any mainstream European news source that is *consistently* skeptical of the EU and Washington? How many, for example, pointed out the attempts to illegitimise the recent Brexit vote? I'm genuinely curious.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:01 am

jupiviv wrote:A summary, by definition, is not exhaustive. Besides, good propaganda always seems unbiased and eager to deconstruct. Small truths are bait for big lies. Anyways, can you name any mainstream European news source that is *consistently* skeptical of the EU and Washington? How many, for example, pointed out the attempts to illegitimise the recent Brexit vote? I'm genuinely curious.
Not sure if there's one mainstream "European" source, as all sources are geared towards their own nation or region. Yes, there's a BBC/CNN/Aljzeera/RT with their international "global" spread but that's not the same.

As for "pointing out attempts to illegitimise the recent Brexit vote", the two largest UK newspapers were actually explicitly pro-Brexit. From a journalistic perspective however they are not considered leading so it depends on how to measure "mainstream" here.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:14 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As for "pointing out attempts to illegitimise the recent Brexit vote", the two largest UK newspapers were actually explicitly pro-Brexit. From a journalistic perspective however they are not considered leading so it depends on how to measure "mainstream" here.
OK, point taken. Either way I think the Brexit is a good thing for the UK. The British became powerful partly because they could afford not to become directly involved in continental affairs.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:49 pm

Without even going into preferring one political movement over another, it could be interesting to see if there's a larger, more abstract dialectic at work.

Perhaps best to see in the US campaign right now, like the following simplistic summary

Mrs Clinton: "work together", "inclusiveness" humility, no ceilings, scripted, flawless, "defender" of children, disabled, women and the poor (interesting mini-category to even be invoked by her!), bonds of "trust and respect", together, together, together, etc .

Mr Trump: more independent directions, pride, barriers and limits, spontaneous, "off-the-cuff", erroneous, respecting authority, differentiation, self-centred awareness, amplifying distinction, admitting to flaws and debt, self, power, self, etc.

This split is also arising in Europe right now. People "feel" like they are sucked into some amorphous blob of unity without borders, without faith or clear identity and with rising debt and insane impossibilities attached (ultimately: core violations and violence). And from a globalist perspective old identities inevitably fade. People are caught in the middle and are in need to resist something as they are defined by this resistance. Of course just re-inventing old images is not going to do it either. These are in my view all signs of a larger struggle to move civilisation "forward" while there is no forward within the fundamental confines of that civilisation. There's only ending and the rising of a new "core idea": the core identities which always have fueled culture and then, over time, a civilisation.

This is similar to Oswald Spengler although I don't think he ever managed to explore the causality of his "core". He couldn't simply because his mind could not reach beyond his own cultural confines.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Fall of the West

Post by jupiviv » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:25 am

I tend to think of Clinton vs Trump like this:

Hitlery - Walrus
The Donald - Carpenter

As in the poem in Alice in Wonderland.

With Hitlery they'll just get four more years of Obama plus the inevitable I am womyn bs. Actually, it will be worse because she's going to bring even more neocons to the White House than Obama did, which would guarantee escalated tensions with the Russia-China axis.

With the Donald, he may get around to actually fulfilling some of his promises just because doing so will make him feel good. In all probability the promises that are actually fulfilled would be precisely the ones which don't really matter either way, like the wall or stricter abortion laws.

If I had to choose I'd go with the Donald. Because at least he did a service to his country by exposing the farcical nature of their democracy. So did Hitlery to be honest, but not intentionally.
These are in my view all signs of a larger struggle to move civilisation "forward" while there is no forward within the fundamental confines of that civilisation. There's only ending and the rising of a new "core idea": the core identities which always have fueled culture and then, over time, a civilisation.
Yes, troubling times inevitably lead to radicalism. The question is, what will the new core identity be? My guess is tribalism - back to roots, going local etc. Globalism, whatever its merits/demerits, is clearly on the wane.

Post Reply