Monthly Archives: November 2012

The decline of the Western world

I was going to make this specifically about the US, but since the downfall of the US will mean the final nail in the coffin of the West, I figured I would make it more broad since it concerns every Western nation.

Like it or not, the Western world is in a state of decline. The civilisation that has made this world possible, that re-discovered reason for a brief transitional period, that made everything that we know possible, from medicine, to technology, to transportation, to space flight, that brought the rest of the world out of the dark ages, is declining.

It has been declining for the past hundred years or so, but in philosophical and cultural terms. This century we see the final nail being nailed in with the economy coming into the arena, where politicians in power, whilst trying to rectify the mistakes of the past by making the problem worse, continue to shorten the leash they have on citizens. The philosophy of altruism has been the reigning doctrine in the West for quite some time now, coupled with the general irrationalism that has permeated just about every facet of life, where successive governments, academics, intellectuals, authors and others, have in one form or another, implemented a policy, made a speech, or wrote a book based on either of these two notions. The altruism is all too visible around us, that is to anyone who is willing to look and think, and the irrationalism is spread out even more in its countless, grotesque forms. Any nation or civilisation cannot sustain such a philosophically and culturally decayed environment for much longer before the economy is effected; and that is what we are witnessing today.

The final sign of a civilisation in decline is the rampant nihilism that takes hold and eventually takes away all and any meaning towards life. This sense of nihilism has existed for quite some time, but the only thing holding it back were the producers – the men and women willing to think and create something out of nothing – they were the buffer, it was on their shoulders that this world was carried on into the next century. Today however, we are witnessing the gradual decline of those producers, where such people who have the courage and vision to move this world are becoming too few and instead being replaced with those who cannot think for themselves, those who have no courage nor vision. Apply this to an entire nation and you have an entire people living for nothing, where the sense of life that once existed is long forgotten and all that remains are monuments – whether skyscrapers, movies or books – to what was once possible and everyone wonders how it all came to be.

The US is the Western worlds only hope, it is the keystone for our civilisation since it is the only nation that knows what that sense of life is, and it is the only nation that, in varying forms, champions individualism. These two notions have been slowly eroded in the past several decades, but to no significant extent; however today we are witnessing an acceleration in that effort to completely remove any sense of life or individualism by such people as those who sit around in Washington D.C gloating and sneering at anyone who dares counter them. The likes of Obama and co are the type of people who subvert the individualism in the culture of a nation by reminding everyone that their achievements are not all that great since it was not them alone that made it happen, rather first and foremost the government, then anyone else who can make a claim on your mind. In essence, our achievements are that of a collective effort made possible by the government. Such an evil notion as negating your own achievements cannot be taken seriously by anyone who has self-esteem, but it is celebrated by anyone who has none, by anyone who does not know what it is to be an individual.

The economies of the West are what is at stake now, where the US and Western Europe teeter on the brink of total economic collapse. This is the end result of decades of altruistic policies – no matter from which side of the political spectrum since both are to blame – and this is the end result of a civilisation with no proper leadership, philosophically and intellectually. We might ‘just get by’, but without any proper reform of our economic systems – meaning laissez-faire capitalism as the system – we will continue to ‘get by’ until one day we find that there is nothing to get by with and we are at the mercy of someone else.

There are a number of explanations to the decline and fall of the Roman empire. One interesting theory that I came across some time ago was that the rise of Christianity coincided with the decline and fall, so I wonder what future historians – assuming the West does fall – will attest the decline and fall of Western civilisation to? There are two options: if the current trend in academia continues, then capitalism will be to blame, otherwise the socialist, collectivist, altruistic philosophies and economic policies of the 20th and 21st centuries will be rightfully blamed.

We have been at a crossroads for a very long time now and I am not one who believes in historical determinism, that every civilisation ‘must’ fall – or that it will eventually – rather I believe in the possibility of reversing the current trend that the West is in, in saving this civilisation from a bleak future because it doesn’t have to be this way. The solution is in ideas, but the right, or rational, ideas. The West needs a major wake up call to reality, it needs the right type of ideas to permeate its schools, newspapers, books, politicians, and once this happens, the Western world will be back on the track that it strayed from long ago.


Another rant on the “gay community”

Out of all the irrationality that comes out of the “gay community”, what annoys me the most is their near automatic, default adopting of anything remotely left-wing for the sole reason that this branch of politics is for “gay rights”. What also annoys me is their lobbying the government to exert force onto its citizens, and only for issues that affect them.

They are heavily involved in anti-discrimination laws and anti-bullying laws, and whilst I can understand the motive (since discrimination and bullying does exist), doing it through force is not the solution. For example, last year in the UK, a Christian couple operating a small hotel (part of which was their actual home) turned away two gay men and it made news when the two men sued and won:

The Bulls were sued over their married-only policy on double beds. They were ordered to pay each of the victims £1,800 in compensation for the ‘hurt and embarrassment they suffered’.

I was outraged at the time to see such a gross violation of property rights, but that term no longer exists in the UK, a country that has produced great thinkers advocating property rights. The only way I can describe the gay couple are as “cry babies”. You can read about it all here.

So in essence, these type of homosexuals go around literally demanding that others accept them, yet when it comes to the others, well it’s a different story. Their basic premise is that it’s ok to use force to achieve your end.

There’s an Australian ad that advocates for anti-bullying of homosexuals. I actually thought it was some joke when I first saw it because it was rather funny, however the end is the best with the police officer talking to a lesbian saying “there are laws to protect you”. But of course, people need laws to protect them against WORDS.

Another example: there’s a show here called “Insight” and it’s basically a discussion show where some controversial topic is chosen, and a host of people from the general public, academics, doctors, whoever can contribute, are selected to discuss the issue. Last year it was something gay-related, and there were two high school girls in their last year, from a private school (Catholic or Anglican, I forgot). They made a huge issue out of the fact that their school prohibited them from going to the formal (prom) together since they were lesbians. They participated in some rally holding signs “our school is homophobic” and it ended up getting some media coverage.

Nobody was even questioning the right the private school had, rather it was all about how the school could accomodate for them, or rather, be forced into accepting their decision to attend the formal as partners. I think it was the principal or some religious representative from the school that was on the show, and he explained very clearly that the school is based on a religion whose scripture does not allow for such relationships. The mediator who conducts the show asked the two girls whether they understood that position, that they basically have a right to deny them their request, yet the response from the two girls was typical trash that most teenagers spout: “Yeah but what about us, what about our feelings, why can’t they accept us?” and then some random middle-aged woman suddenly made a scathing attack against the principal in what was your typical emotional plea. I don’t know what the outcome was nor did I care to find out since it didn’t matter; those two girls will go on to add to the vast and rich pool that is feminazism.

What’s even more pathetic is that so many gay men who ascribe to this philosophy of force look at someone like me in complete bewilderment because I don’t support their campaigns, because I’m against anti-discrimination laws, or any laws that use force against others (speaking in the context of “gay rights”). They see it as some ‘natural’ way of thinking, as something so normal, that it’s ok to exert force onto others. That’s the most disturbing, irrational notion to come out of the mainstream “gay community”, but what’s even more disturbing is that they fail to identify it for what it is.

Some thoughts on the Petraeus scandal

No doubt everyone has heard about this debacle and now other men are involved too. What I found ‘funny’ was thinking about all those religious zealots who go about campaigning against same-sex marriage in the name of “family values”, as if to suggest that heterosexual couples are the only ones who can exhibit these values. Now to be ‘fair’, heterosexual men/women are far more common amongst such positions, so such things are more likely to happen amongst them, statistically speaking. It’s not that I’m saying homosexuals are incapable of such immoral acts, just that it’s pointless to go about seeking government intervention in the lives of others because you claim to represent the sexual orientation of your gender and claim to know what’s best for society.