I should have been a hippie: THANK GOD, I never was--Divine providence, methinks.

I ALTOGETHER agree with Bill! I LOVE the Judeo-Christian, British dispensation that made Canada the land of freedom, rule of law and good government it used to be--before the "radical hippies", e.g., Trudeau et al, messed everything up. Bless you, Bill!

But it's late (if one's hippie age!): I'm sure I'll be back.

I think Robin Williams said that if you remember the 1960s, you weren't there. This obtuse chatter is evidence of that. What is the point?

Pardon?

That was good. The summary was great. The part about Clooney was choice.

Good quote by Robin Williams. Maybe in another 40 years you can reflect on it?

That Bill Whittle post, Kate, explains exactually why we have to fight the civilization destroyers every step of the way. Starting with the United Nations and ideas like ONE World Governance.

Bill Whittle explains how interdependent everybody is in this world. Like when the hippy/activist/enviro-nut steps on a jet to be wisked away to another tear-down-civilization-protest. Does he/she realize how many hard working people it took to provide them with the easy life they lead ? Transportation, food, shelter ? Of couse not. They are still stuck in the 60's hippy fake world.

Bill is right; RACE DOES NOT CAUSE RACISM, CULTURE DOES.

Kate, I read the same post earlier today. I presume I had a very similar reaction to it. Along the chain of links and references that led me to the post, I came across this video. After watching this, I cannot imagine anyone in the west having much doubt about what is unfolding around us. I think the post you cite is helpful in understanding the reasons for our denial.

well said...born in 59 myself, i know exactly where you are coming from...when i enlisted in 77, all of my "hippie" cousins accused me of being a sell out, etc....yet, at any given time, ivan had 3000 tanks idling, with their loaded guns pointed at us....as well...talk about the hypocrite generation...they drive diesel volvos, live in 4000 sq ft log cabins...yet, they think they r environmentally friendly cuz they compost....it was the hippies/socialists/commies who, with their liberal/ndp consipirators, created the multi-cultural mess we have in Canada today with their social engineering....it will be nice to see the last of them..

I just like to wonder and marvel at civilisation sometimes. I mean I just shake my head at the sheer complexety and depth and breadth.

Currently I am building a new computer and just the other day I was looking at some of the indvidual parts and wonder how they were designed who did it how were they built the wonder of what they do when put together.

Anyway you get the point for me I can while some amount of time just thinking about the sheer elegance of it.

An analogy I've used with some success, in describing where we are today is this:

"Think of civilization as a great, inverted pyramid.
The point it balances on is the first step man took, when he picked up a stick to use as a tool.
Each layer above that is built, thicker and higher, on successive steps of technology, until you get to today's world.
Instant messages, Ipods & cell phones, "poor" in America really more like middle class in other countries.

Now, imagine how easy it is to push that pyramid over, it being so topheavy, balanced on a point..."

Wow. Whittle punches through the clouds again. Thanks for the reference, Kate. So here it is, 03:00 on a Sunday morning, around me the city sleeps. Except, of course, for the unseen army of policemen, firemen, emergency doctors, operating engineers, and untold others who keep civilization progressing. Like me, for example. I'm working this early Sunday morning (well, technically I'm waiting for a massive file transfer while I write this, it takes an hour), so that when the engineers who depend on our systems to help keep large chemical plants safe get to work on Monday morning, they won't find my work interrupting them.

You can see why the soldiers of this infrastructure and undergirding army tend to be less than impressed by, to use Whittel's example, the Oscars, or to use one of my favourite egregious violations of reason, Allan Kellog's conjecture in the Edmonton Journal to the effect that "Alberta's arts sector is infrastructure and should be funded as such." If you want to know what's really important in the progress of civilization, just ask yourself how much you would notice the absence of something. For example, if the power grid supplying my office goes down right now, I'll notice it immediately. However, if Kellog's column doesn't appear in the Edmonton Journal when it arrives in a few hours, I won't notice it at all.

Don't forget the words of Alan Charles Kors, who on 2003-10-19 wrote, at the Objectivist Center: "The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one's breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry "caste." In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either "poverty" or "consumerism." In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry "alienation." In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry "oppression." In a society of boundless private charity, they cry "avarice." In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the "exploitation" of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry "injustice." In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like "liberty" in quotation marks when these refer to the West."

Much as I cannot abide rap music,* I enjoyed hearing an ageing hippie groaning about it once:

"Shit, I can't believe my kids play music I hate all the time."

Heh heh.

* The official musical choice of thugs, yardies, pimps and crack-pushers.

Bill Whittle has a way of thinking through and expressing what I inherently know. If the Palestinians valued the same principles as any of my ancestors: PROVIDING A BETTER LIFE FOR THEIR CHILDREN. Palestine would be a state and those children would be teachers, engineers, and true PUBLIC servants. What kind of society, with all the international aid they have recieved, would they have built?

My mom grew up the daughter of poor dirt farmers, 11 children born into the family. No birth control and every child was a precious farm hand and a beloved treasure. They struggled to grow what they ate. They literally made their own beds from cloth, thread, and gathered down. In a log cabin sleeping 5 in a bed, winds whipping through the cracks, and all using one outhouse that was too close in the summer and too far in the winter. No electricity. No plumbing. My mother never saw a TV until she was in high school. All "the state" ever gave them was free schooling when they didn't have to miss for planting and harvest, access to public libraries, and some free government cheese and an occasional bag of beans. Each worked their asses off to rise out of poverty. Their hard upbringing drove them to work their way through college to become engineers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and war veterans. I know first hand that THIS is how America was built.

My ancestors were displaced by famine, war, and the exercise of imminent domain to create the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They moved on with the hand that was delt them and worked to make the best of their lives FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR CHILDREN.

I am living in America with every modern amenity that ingenuity and capitalism has provided. My mom grew up in America, too -- THIRD WORLD AMERICA. ONE generation ago.

I often hear that we made progress because "America stole". Tell me...WHAT HAVE WE STOLEN and from whom? I hear "Imperial America". What Empire? WHERE IS IT? We have paid the world very dear debts already. What do we possible still owe it? Why are we so resented and unfairly and thoroughly HATED, while Islamic militants are revered? They have bared no burden that my own family has not. How did they carry it?

The Middle East would still be just another DESERT if not for Henry Ford and his successors. Market price was and is paid for oil and gas. What has Arab/Muslim society gained by this obscene wealth? Andrew Carnegie build libraries. What have the NATIVE sheiks and mullahs done with their fortune?

Apologies to Kate for bandwidth, but I do hope Jaymeister gets my reply to a related debate she initiated here: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004359.html#comments.

Jay,

I don't think anyone here really knows Maliki well enough to know whether he is, or is not, an anti-semite. Howard Dean doesn't either, and that is the point. The "Liberal" left (broadly speaking) can't seem to ever put anything ahead of an opportunity to make political hay, no matter how presumptuous the basis of their "argument". And that is all Dean was doing. He was not standing up for a value that he really believes in. This was an opportunity to honor a freely elected Iraqi head of state who has put his life on the line to help drag his people out of Saddam Hussein's dungeon.

"It's all about balance and calling people out for their shortcomings, while praising them for their strengths." It seems the left believes that the only culture to be "called out for their shortcomings" is their own. Nothing wrong with any other. Anyone who sees issues with political and militant Islam are "Islamophobic". I am all for healthy self-reflection, and consider it a hallmark of freedom. But, for the Left, it seems WE are ALWAYS the problem. Where is the praise for western liberalism among the (I will argue largely self-loathing) left? How do they project "Liberal" values to their fellow man?

I never hear a leftists wailing about the use of the death penalty in Iran or China. I never hear a leftist mention "gay rights", or "women's rights" in relation to the Arab world. In my opinion, THEY are the racist hypocrites. If they really believe in these "human rights", shouldn't they believe in them for every human, no matter their color?

Posted by: Tom Penn at July 29, 2006 08:39 PM

Apologies to Kate for bandwidth, but I do hope Jaymeister gets my reply to a related debate she initiated here: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004359.html#comments.

Jay,

I don't think anyone here really knows Maliki well enough to know whether he is, or is not, an anti-semite. Howard Dean doesn't either, and that is the point. The "Liberal" left (broadly speaking) can't seem to ever put anything ahead of an opportunity to make political hay, no matter how presumptuous the basis of their "argument". And that is all Dean was doing. He was not standing up for a value that he really believes in. This was an opportunity to honor a freely elected Iraqi head of state who has put his life on the line to help drag his people out of Saddam Hussein's dungeon.

"It's all about balance and calling people out for their shortcomings, while praising them for their strengths." It seems the left believes that the only culture to be "called out for their shortcomings" is their own. Nothing wrong with any other. Anyone who sees issues with political and militant Islam are "Islamophobic". I am all for healthy self-reflection, and consider it a hallmark of freedom. But, for the Left, it seems WE are ALWAYS the problem. Where is the praise for western liberalism among the (I will argue largely self-loathing) left? How do they project "Liberal" values to their fellow man?

I never hear a leftists wailing about the use of the death penalty in Iran or China. I never hear a leftist mention "gay rights", or "women's rights" in relation to the Arab world. In my opinion, THEY are the racist hypocrites. If they really believe in these "human rights", shouldn't they believe in them for every human, no matter their color?

Posted by: Tom Penn at July 29, 2006 08:39 PM

Uhhhh, scuse me, Kate -- ignorant country boy on dial up. Please delete the accidental duplicatation.

Great Posts, Vitruvius & Tom Penn.

We appear to be surrounded by shallow, uninformed and uneducated, (regardless of the years they may have spent being 'schooled'), individuals; ('individuals' who lack all individuality and whose 'thought processes' consist of little more than reguritated mantras).

Every time, (in my own hopelessly limited fashion), I try and identify the genesis of this societal peculiarity I return to highlighting the pernicious effects that 'educators', (as they now prefer to be called), inflict upon the young. People whose comparative workload is lighter than many, but who whine constantly about being overworked, (something they imply they'd be only too willing to do "But for the sake of 'the children'").

People whose remuneration/benefits/pensions place them in an enviable position, but who man the barricades in virtually unceasing strikes/threats of strikes and act as if they are being chained to sewing-machines in unventilated sweatshops.

And, even more importantly, people who seem not to comprehend, or pass along, the concept of perspective.

I peruse reader's comments in the G&M on a daily basis, and so many posters repeat chants about "Both sides being in the wrong", as if there are no absolutes........I'm sure many of them would demand that police don't 'Take sides' in the event of a mugging, and that both the the criminal AND the little old lady be thrown in jail until they learn to behave themselves. (Of course, this would involve a longer sentence for the little old lady, because the money she had obviously attained MUST have come from the backs of others, while the mugger, by virtual definition, has been deliberately excluded by society and NEEDS the cash to try and compensate for low self-esteem).

My pet theory, Nemo, is that all the people who are causing problems somehow fundamentally don't like themselves, because I'm clearly causing no problems, and I really like myself. Heh. Well, folks, it's 05:30 now, the new machines in Cleveland are up and running, the nightly machine status report emails have come through, and it looks like everything's running smoothly, so I'm going to catch some sleep. Y'all take care now, y'hear, and have a great civilized Sunday: enjoy our progress, won't you?

Hoping this c/p is not deemed OT.

"Saying farewells became banal."

Fisher abhors sentiment; the mawkish kitsch of the left liberals exemplified by the nuance of Bill Graham, et al.

Fisher came from a railroad family; Fisher knows that society runs because of others labour.

Vitruvius knows, too.

Fisher has no time for saying farewells; Does Fisher know life is fragile; egg-shell fragile? Read on; there is so much in his last column.

Fisher cites/closes with the conundrum of Canada: What is to be done with crazy, old Aunty-American?

Fisher agrees: Look westward, the land is bright.

Bravo, Douglas Fisher.

Thank you, Douglas Fisher. ...-

A Celebration of 50 Great Years
By Douglas Fisher

It's time to go, probably past time.

My bent, as I write this last column for the Sun, is to be laconic about it. This skimping on sentiment probably stems from my early life in a railway family and years as an ordinary soldier in World War II. Saying farewells became banal.
...

In closing this farewell column, I want to ask and try to answer the great question: Where is Canada going?

My guess is that Quebec, so central to our politics during my time, is unlikely to depart (a decade ago, I thought it would).

The demographics on births, immigration and language preferences forecast a steady slippage of "la francophonie" in Canada. Within a quarter-century, I believe the West will be Canada's most powerful region -- the wealthiest, with the most federal clout. Meantime, Canada as a whole should be as prosperous as any country in the world, given our natural resources and people.

If there is any great and immediate question Canadians have to settle in the next decade, it is this: How do we come to sensible, workable terms with the most basic animus now affecting our polity, i.e., our rampant anti-Americanism?

If we cannot contain it and divert its force into a national determination to know our neighbours better and make them understand our grievances, we could face organized hostility and major troubles from the U.S.

To conclude, I wince when Canadians brag of our vast land and our superior ways in health care and peacekeeping -- because bragging is so un-Canadian.

Nonetheless, at 86 and retiring, I am as positive about our country as I was in my 20s, coming home from the war.

In this century, there will be as much opportunity as there was a century ago in the opening up of our West, with the promise of a better society to the fore -- if we cultivate our politics sensibly.

Excelsior! ...-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13359.6

Nemo 2, I hear you. I'm a teacher and the teaching culture, thoroughly subverted by the hippie mindset for the past 30 years, is now hell--pure hell. From an earlier post, I said (quotation marks only at the beginning and end):

"I'm a career teacher--literacy specialist--with a sterling track record. (I used to be respected. Now, when I advocate for higher standards, which I'm able to deliver in favourable circumstances--e.g., reasonable timetabling and curriculum demands--I get, figuratively, bashed over the head.)

The regulations and sycophantic enforcers (read: admin.) of the ministry and board I work for actually HINDER my ability to do the job properly. The public school teaching culture is a political quagmire. Altogether mixing my metaphors, doing my job in the gulag is like wading upstream in molasses in January, while shackled, hand and foot. Oh ya, my mouth's covered in duct tape too.

The failure of public education to set high standards, academically and behaviourally, rather than appease, and the ministry's inability to devise a "learn to mastery" curriculum--it needs to be "narrow and deep", not "broad and shallow" as it is now--is an utter scandal. Heads should be rolling.

Unfortunately, heads are, but it's usually the heads of parents and teachers who try to challenge the idiocies (and idiots) of the system. The unions are generally altogether non pro-active: They miss all kinds of opportunities to hold the boards accountable. E.g., When involved in cases where admin. has egregiously ignored and misused board rubrics, the union doesn't produce or disseminate any documentation. Really! (Most board and union types--virtually all on the left of the political spectrum--are cut from the same cloth. Many are married to and/or party with one another.) Another scandal."

As it strangles quality and integrity at all levels, the hippie-dippie mindset is alive and well in the education culture. Unfortunately, younger teachers were brought up in that leftie, feel-good, mushy-brained, don't-rock-the-boat culture and sort of blend in. They're not programmed for dissent, often have deficits in critical thinking and written expression skills, and they also know that any dissent is likely to be punished by our very powerful overlords, who are generally unaccountable: In my board, there is no assessment process for administration. How convenient for breaking the rules whenever it suits. This lack of accountability is a great incubator for a "culture of fear", which is no exaggeration. It really is like a gulag. The leaders spout "equality" but don't practise it, as they prowl about carrying their big whips.

Then look at the behaviour of the kids. The "rights" culture--without the balance of responsibility--has been handed to them on a platter. The worst ones and their parents use it relentlessly. Teachers who hang tough are often hung out to dry by the "cheese eating surrender monkey" administrators who cave nearly every time.

You said that teachers' "comparative workload is lighter than many." Honestly, that's no longer true--if it ever was. After all the experience I've had, my workload SHOULD be less. It's not. In order to accommodate all the "rights" and ever growing list of entitlements of all the public education stakeholders, all of which requires REAMS of paperwork, I've never worked longer hours or harder in my career. I also deal with behaviourally challenged--but entitled (hippie equality rum amok)--children on a scale exponentially different from 30 years ago. And on and on it goes . . . Rather a vicious circle.

sda is full of folks--thanks, Tom and vitruvius-- who never got on or who've jumped off the utopian merry-go-round. There aren't too many of those in the public education system, which is an ill omen. (The few of us out there are in the crosshairs of admin. and need to tread carefully.) But, Nemo 2, I hear you.

I have read all of Whittle's early stuff and (mostly) enjoyed it. However this latest piece has confirmed to me that he needs a good editor.

Whittle's article is based on a (liberal) theory (Nurture over Nature) that has been disproven. His article fundamentally rejects science and the nature of man to a shocking degree.

Whittle's column is excellent; the Left Who Are Entitled ignore the infrastructure of civilization upon which they depend. If reminded of it, they assert that it was achieved 'on the backs of the poor/colonized/whatever'. It wasn't; it was achieved by reason and experiment and hard work. And the left most certainly doesn't stop using that infrastructure of technological accomplishments.

With regard to Fisher's comment on Canadians asserting their superior 'peacekeeping' - that's quite an assertion by Canadians. Canada isn't required, as is the USA, to protect this Western civilization. Canada has NO responsibilities.

Canada, for example, takes no responsibility to market its industrial products on the world market; it doesn't compete; it just insists that the US buy all its products. There isn't a country in the world which has a ratio of its exports of 85% to only one country. Only Canada exports 85% of its export to only one country, the US. That's an extreme reliance on the US consumer.

Canada hasn't developed an investor class, which invests money in long term future-oriented infrastructures of research and industrial dev't. Instead, Canada relies on other countries to do the big money heavy investing. We then, just work in those factories; or work with the inventions developed elsewhere.

I don't think that Canadians are deeply anti-American; I think they have been brainwashed into it by the massive propaganda arm of the Liberal Party control of Canada since Trudeau's disastrous era. Anti-Americanism is a basic dogma of the Liberals, for, like the anti-West rhetoric of the ME, it enables us to 'export' all anger and dissent outside the country.

Anger and dissent at, for example, our disastrous health care system. We aren't allowed to criticize it; if we do, we are told that 'it's worse in the US' and 'You don't want to be like the US, do you??'. Heck - why not be like the US? So many of our citizens have to go to the US to get medical treatment!!

Anger and dissent at the reality that Canada has no role in the international stage. The Liberal pompous rhetoric that Canada is the World's Peacekeeper'...is getting to be viewed as Just Words and Not True.

And ignorance. Ignorance that our middle class lifestyle is based, almost entirely, on the fact that we have an ever-ready consumer, the US, to purchase our goods. So, we don't have the expense of competitive marketing, of competitive bettering of our products. No expenses; we just ship it all to the US.
No expenses for research - we just use the research contributions of the US and other countries.
No expenses for military - we just sit back and have the US pay for, and die for, maintaining our freedoms around the world.

Finally, wit Harper, we have a leader who is turning this Fake and Fraudulent Make Believe World of the Liberals around...and bringing Canada out of its FantasyLand and back into the light of reality.
And the MSM is relentlessly attacking him.

After all, for the Left and the MSM, it's nice in the cool Cave of FantasyLand. They prefer to sit back there - and sneer at the World.

Bob -
'science' IS cultural. Science is not genetic; it is a rational examination of reality and a reasoned analysis of that reality. Therefore, it is 'culture' as differentiated from 'natural' or innate.

The innate nature of man is his reasoning capacity which allows him to adapt to his environment by means of cultural or social inventions. Man's emotional capacity is beneficial (and harmful) because it enables him to desire change and then, move to his reasoning capacity to invent a new technology.

So, man can feel grief at diseases, can hope for a situation where he can control the disease, and then, move into a rational phase of examining causes of disease..and come up with a solution.

The innate aspects are the capacity for reason and the capacity for emotion. The social (cultural) are the actions of reasoning and the actions of emotion.

Whittle is right; you put someone from one background into another environment, and that new environment (culture, society) will affect their behaviour.

Kate: Thanks. Sublime! I was born in 1949, the exact 10-year gap he mentions. A boomer! But embarrassed to be in that generation which I consider the "worst generation". I only hope to be still alive when the last hippy in government (that is an accurate phrase) is pensioned off.

Much of this reminded me of a very famous piece (in Libertarian circles) by Leonard Read, called: I, PENCIL.

http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=316

He is the founder of the venerable apolitical liberty think tank called the the Foundation of Economic Education (bookmark FEE, support it, get the monthly mag, The Freeeman).

lookout (a hero) and vitruvius, great! Nothing to add to that! As Kate says: "it's enough".

Obsession: What the War on Terror is Really all About

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en

Highly recommended for people who search for "root causes" and think that the Arab/Israel conflict is just a dispute over land.

I've just read the whole article. This is what I wrote to Bill:

Hi there! I read "The Web of Trust" via small dead animals blog in Canada. I'm pushing 59 and hear you: I've NEVER been a hippie and, on that score, share your feelings exactly! As you can imagine, I've always marched to the tune of a different drummer and been somewhat a fish out of water re my contemporaries, who do, indeed, have a great deal to answer for.

As far as you go in your essay, I entirely agree with you: Many thanks for your wise insights. However, except for the reference to the preacher--your grandfather?--you ignored the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the West. Without that foundation, there would be no Western Civilization. Really.

I'm a believing Christian--far from perfect--and the derision levelled at my faith is, I believe, a huge component in the ingratitude you so rightly identify and chastise in the West. (It's actually a fact that Christians in the US--I'm very PRO-USA!--and Canada give the lion's share of charitable donations in $, goods, and time. We actually ADD to the wealth of our nations, especially in the US. Unfortunately, on that score, Canada's very socialistic and more like Europe. Most lefties brag that Canada's better than the USA: That's an utter crock.)

Keep up the good work. We need to hear the kind of thing you're saying much more often. Whenever I can, I boldly stand up for Western Civilization, including insisting on acknowledging the importance of the Judeo-Christian code of ethics, which, among many other goods (musical and other artistic masterpieces, hospitals, schools and universities . . . ), led to Magna Carta, which led to peace, order, and good government in England and then in all its colonies, including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (And, to which countries have we seen mass immigration? Bingo! Those whose governments and judicial systems were founded on the Judeo-Christian bedrock of justice, respect for the individual, and the rule of law.)

Re the George Clooneys of this world: What utter hypocrites. I have no respect whatever for such sycophants. They live in a rarified bubble far removed from reality. Did you see Vanity Fair's Green--for ecology--cover? Julia Roberts and a few other actresses looking like green Tinkerbells. I think Al Gore(y) was also included--green too. These people, with their 10 cars, 5 houses, personal Lear jets, servants, ALL the mod-cons, jet set lifestyle, etc. probably consume more energy in a week than my family's modest lifestyle--one 8 year old Golf, one semi-detached house, no air conditioning, almost no flying around anywhere!--does in half a year. The lefty elites: whited sepulchres and Pharisees!

Bill, enjoy your flights. And here's a poem for you, which you probably know. I was going to quote just a line, but then thought, why not send the whole, beautiful thing? (And, as you point out, we stand on the shoulders of brave men like Gillespie Magee. By comparison, George Clooney's a moral pygmy.)

High Flight
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee
No 412 squadron, RCAF
Killed 11 December 1941

May he rest in peace and may light perpetual shine upon him.

One would think that the FAKEY, FLAKEY liberal-ness (mess) would someday collapse. Fakes usually are exposed for what they are and can collapse quickly and without warning. Just like the Berlin Wall. I know people who fled Germany in the 70s, thinking that socialism would overtake the west. I also know Canadians who voted Liberal all there lives because,.. because,.. Didn't know. A lot of them now concure with virtually everyone of Prime Minister Harpers policies. Propaganda by the MSM is very, very persuasive. Or at least has been. Subtle spin, even just a little, can sway one's thinking. After an "interview", the reporter's wrap-up, in all-knowing tones, can clinch the story line, even if it is biased.

I invite readers to read the following links; I'm sure you'll agree with me that Whittle's position on this issue, whether one agrees with it or not, is the liberal\socialist\marxist view on the issue. Let's use that as a starting point:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_determinism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_determinism

I'd also state that almost nobody in the scientific community is a pure "tabula rasa" adherent, as is Whittle. The preponderance of evidence and general consensus of the scientific community at this time suggests something closer to 50/50 Nature/Nurture.

I don't even need to suggest that Nature > Nurture in order to back my 2 points that a) Whittle is quantifiably wrong according to the best available scientific data; and b) Whittle's position on this issue is quantifiably liberal\socialist\marxist.

So excuse the hell out of me if I express my displesure as I read a left wing baby boomer state his left wing nonsense while simultaneously telling me how much he hates left wing baby boomers. Chutzpah doesn't even begin to cover this one.

Potted Durkheim. {yawn]

Excellent analysis, B.H.A. I actually have a friend in her 60s who's always been a liberal--votes Green, actually! But she says she's becoming--just now!--much more conservative and she admits that she's quite impressed with PMSH. (Well, I do stand up for him a lot and educate my friend about what he's doing, as well as discredit what she reads in the G & M.)

And you're right about impostors, including ideologies. The fakery of the l(L)iberal dispensation's all around us in the crumblimg of our ethical, communal--including families--and material infrastuctures. Lefty dogmas, which have trashed altruism and deferred gratification for "I want everything I want. For me. Now"--BTW, these are the "Charter values" PM Dithers kept referring to--simply cannot sustain healthy organisms.

The problem is that, like communism and facism, which have been totally discredited, the utopianism of the Left has had and still has the power to cause incalculable damage, even after it begins to be disabled: Trudeaupian clones have taken over most of the establishments of this country--education at all levels, government, mainline Protestant churches, the media, the judicial system (VERY BAD, with Trudeau's Charter as its weapon of choice)--who are all very out of touch with reality and not willing to admit it or give up their perqs without a fight. And, as, at the moment, they hold the balance of power in this country, it won't be easy to unseat them.

However, REALITY, of which PMSH and the CPC and Kate and sda are a huge dose, is beginning to slowly turn things around. Alleluia and pass the ammunition!

And I don't mean weapons like guns or knives; I do mean much more powerful weapons, like--borrowing from scripture--the belt of truth--yes, there is such a thing; the breastplate of righteousness--yes, stand firm against moral relativism and false equivalency; and the sword of courage!

Now, my brave ones, onward and over the top: Let's roll!)

bob- I don't think that wikipedia is the Best Source for information. It's good in many areas but must always be treated cautiously. Its viewpoints are sometimes lacking sufficient input and therefore, can be one-sided.

I don't think Whittle was arguing in favour of the blank slate notion - at least, I didn't read his comments in that manner. You obviously did.

I fully agree with you, however, in being against the Blank Slate notion. Humans are not 'blank slates' and as such, can't be programmed like machines via their cultural nurturance. I agree with you that the 1940's and on notion that 'people are programmed totally by their culture' is simplistic and empty.

Is that really the socialist viewpoint? That is, do socialists really think that humans are socially/culturally malleable and can be programmed to 'be anything' and 'do anything'. That is a totalitarian viewpoint - and certainly, socialists have that tendency to control everyone!

However, I don't get the impression from the left that they have any notion of causes of social behaviour; they never explore the environment as cause, history as cause. They seem to focus only on an agenda of rejecting social/cultural change in Other Peoples. A romantic Rousseau-based viewpoint.

I get the impression from leftist tracts that they tend to view themselves as superior, with the mission of 'protecting the poor and deprived FROM education, FROM any social or cultural change. They have no intention of changing the ideologies or behaviour of these Other People. Their agenda is to prevent change.

Most certainly, more and more research is revealing that there are genetic differences between the genders in analytic and reasoning focus (Harvard's Summer was right). That's focus, not IQ.

However, as far as IQ is concerned, that's an individual, not ethnic or group base. I'm sure you've heard of the asinine study that actually correlates IQ to nations! Can you imagine?! A nation is a political construct; an IQ is a biological construct. You can't correlate a socially constructed attribute with a biologically constructed attribute. But, some people actually believe this.

My point is, that if you take a newborn from a society which lives by Hunting and Gathering, and raise that child in a modern industrial society, there is no reason to doubt that he/she might become a computer scientist. What might prevent him - is his IQ, which is HIS INDIVIDUAL, not group-based attribute. AND, the family in which he is nurtured, might have low aspirations. But, if his IQ is average or above average, and he's raised in a scholastic environment, that child of a Hunting/Gathering past, can become a scientist.

Why? Because we are all members of the same species: homo sapiens.

Actually, mirabile dictu, I agree with Bob and Dawg re Bill's faulty understanding of nature vs nurture. Human beings most certainly are NOT interchangable and nature is not as malleable as he suggests.

However, imperfect though his analysis is at the beginning, I believe Bill ends up with about the right conclusion re honouring the civilization of the West as a glorious construct, worthy of both our honour and protection.

Apologies if this is a duplicate post. Earlier effort disappeared.

Much of his piece reminded me of a famous essay by Leonard Read called "I, Pencil". Read founded the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946 which remains a vital, venerable and totally apolitical think tank espousing liberty, free markets, and limited government. Check it out, bookmark the site; better yet, contribute to the cause and receive its monthly magazine The Freeman.

"I, Pencil":

http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=316

Good posts Vitruvius (a hero in the trenches fighting against the forces of civilizatonal suicide)

ET: upon further reflection, you too are a hero for having these views despite being in the enemy camp of the modern university.

nature/nurture …. yawn. That is incidental to his central thesis which I read to be: the amazing complexity of western civilization despite the absence of an overarching plan. It is exactly this which drives left-lib elites (former hippies) beserk: that all this happens without their central plan.

However, as far as IQ is concerned, that's an individual, not ethnic or group base. I'm sure you've heard of the asinine study that actually correlates IQ to nations! Can you imagine?! A nation is a political construct; an IQ is a biological construct. You can't correlate a socially constructed attribute with a biologically constructed attribute. But, some people actually believe this.

My point is, that if you take a newborn from a society which lives by Hunting and Gathering, and raise that child in a modern industrial society, there is no reason to doubt that he/she might become a computer scientist. What might prevent him - is his IQ, which is HIS INDIVIDUAL, not group-based attribute. AND, the family in which he is nurtured, might have low aspirations. But, if his IQ is average or above average, and he's raised in a scholastic environment, that child of a Hunting/Gathering past, can become a scientist.

There is nothing biological about IQ measurements. They are a sociological, culturally derived construct. They only measure, and poorly at that, the product of a long cultural learning experience. This is why the "assinine" study found the results that it did. To an extent, newborns ARE a blank slate, albeit tempered with a degree of pre-programmed species-specifc autonomic responses. THAT is why children of "hunter-gatherers" (an elitest viewpoint if there ever was one)can become "scientists" (whatever that means). Opportunity, appropriate sensory, cognitive and associative skill acquisition will produce a "scientist", or "hunter-gatherer", even, if its faulty, a Liberal. "IQ" has nothing to do with it. Adaptibility and culture will determine the success of the process, not IQ.

My apologies - that last post didn't block out very well: ET up to "There is nothing biological..." Me, after that.

Testing 1,2,3 (with no links).

BTW, when did sda turn 3 million ? has almost added another 100k already !!

A fine article. Bill puts forward a number of interesting ideas in a lucid and entertaining manner. Well worth the read in its entirety.

I've been reading up on philosphical postmodernism lately. Postmodernism is rapidly falling out of fashion, but its "ideas" still pemeate many university departments. They precisely reflect the disdain for modern civilization that Wittle discusses. Many believe, for example, that science and technology are just "another way of knowing", with no more claim to the truth than any other belief system. Postmodernists write these words, by the way, on modern workstations and send them on to their colleagues thousands of miles a way in a matter of seconds using e-mail. Such bizarre and willful obtusenes boggles the mind.

Many postmodernists also believe that heterosexual Caucasian males are the cause of all oppression in the world. We are, of course, but it's impolite to point it out.

My feelings are that the societies we live in today are a reflection of our children and our children's children upbringing. When there are no consequences for your actions, it simply means there are no boundaries. When appeasement is the parent’s response to a wrong by a child what message does it send? As adults these children feel that they don't have to justify anything for their actions but a plausible excuse. The superficial caring and concern feigned by our society today is a direct result of the present artificial sound good look good social policies. We unfortunately get the society we raise.

Western Canadian: You said it! Thanks.

Maybe Immagration plays a part!

I note with interest that the graphic accompanying the referenced article includes a United Kingdom European Union passport. Until bilingualism took hold, the UK was by far Canada's greatest source of immigrants and, for Britons, Canada was the "country of choice." Currently, Australia has government representatives on the ground in the UK, interviewing educated and skilled applicants in an effort to recruit on the order of 80,000 of them per year. Last year, the Canadian government announced that it would be recruiting in North Africa for Francophone immigrants to settle in areas of Canada outside Quebec. One would rightly assume that education and skills are secondary. Is there really any doubt that an endogenous social engineering agenda has driven Canada's immigration efforts?

(I tend to be more of a "cut, paste, and run" blog commentor, with good intentions (arguing on the net is both retarded and a waste of our good hostess' bandwidth), but this is a fascinating topic for discussion. This is a tad long but it does contain a point, so permit me this and I'll shut the hell up.)

I've said my thing from a scientific data point of view; I'll try another perspective. The statement in the article that made me go "WTF???" was the following:

"In fact, I’ll bet my life on the fact that I can make astronauts and engineers out of any healthy babies of any color."

"Astronauts and engineers" is sorta like me saying I could make "university graduates and Nobel Prize winners"; a little too much wiggle room there for my liking, but no big deal.

I can't imagine this statement has much support among the public at large and particularly those who have raised children. I'd suggest if one were to go to, say, an online discussion board for parents raising children and posted the following:

"Hi folks. Some male geek with a blog is of the opinion that he can take any baby and raise - presumably alone, as a single geek male father, in a society that bans child beating and forces even homeschooled children to be taught crap - to be an engineer or an astronaut. In fact, since he's willing to bet his life on it, we can infer that he is 100% certain of this and he completely discounts any possibility whatsoever that the kid could go bad, or even turn out "average". I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks."

...Whittle's point of view would not be warmly received. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

Another thing to note is that is he 100% certain of his position, the implication being that he complete precludes any possibility whatsoever that said hypothetical kid could possibly turn out either bad, average, or just different than the expected outcome of engineer/astronaut.

This reminds me of a brilliant scene in an otherwise forgettable movie. The dialogue is between degenerate gambler/law student Matt Damon and his law professor Martin Landau:

- May I tell you a story?
- Please.
- For generations, men of my family have been rabbis.
In Israel, before that in Europe.
It was to be my calling. I was quite a prodigy.
The pride of my yeshiva.
The elders said I had a -year-old's understanding...
of the midrash by the time I was .
But by the time I was
I knew I could never be a rabbi.
-Why not?
-Because for all I understood of the Talmud,
I never saw God there.
-You couldn't lie to yourself.
- I tried.
Tried like crazy.
I mean, people were counting on me.
-But yours is a respectable profession.
-Not to my family.
My parents were destroyed, devastated by my decision.
My father sent me away to New York...
to live with distant cousins.
Eventually, l... I found my place,
my life's work.
-What then?
-I immersed myself fully, I studied the minutiae,
I learned everything I could about the law.
I mean, I felt deeply inside that it was what I was born to do.
- And did your parents get over it?
- No.
I always hoped that I would find...
some way to change their minds, but...
They were inconsolable.
My father never spoke to me again.
-If you had to do it all over again,
would you make the same choices?
-What choice?
The last thing I took away from the yeshiva is this...
We can't run from who we are.
Our destiny chooses us.

Great essay by Whittle. A kind of "I Pencil" on steroids.

E.T.'s right - there's nothing in it that should foment a debate about 'Nature vs Nurture'.

...wow, you actually mean there are people out there who think like Bill Whittle?

Being awash in the great Media bs, I was starting to think I was the abnormal one.

cheers
tom
'58 ;-)

PS- Gazooks, Kate you have the time to read other blogs while keeping this one running? You go girl!

skip - there's nothing 'elitist' (whatever that means) about the term 'Hunters and Gatherers'. It's a recognized economic mode, just as 'industrial' is another economic mode, or 'pastoral nomadic' is another economic mode.

What 'Hunters and Gatherers' (H&G) means is that it is an economy based around, just as the words say - hunting, fishing, gathering. There is NO domestication of animals and NO cultivation of plants. The basic reason for this lack of domestication and cultivation is - the environment won't support it. No animals that can be domesticated (ever tried to domesticate a lion?); and the land is not suitable for agriculture (too wet, too dry, soil too thin, too cold, too hot, etc). This economic mode makes NO effort to technologically change its environment; it's a 'no growth' society which means it can only support a minimal population. It's extremely stable BUT, has no capacity to adapt, because ideologically, the society does not define itself as 'changing the env't'.

A scientist, of course, is devoted to innovation and change. Get the difference?

I agree with you that our IQ tests are geared to our western mode, but, they have developed tests to measure non-western perspectives. I disagree that they only measure cultural learning. They measure logical or reasoning capacity - and that's not learned and is a basic component of all members, no matter the ethnic group, of our species.

I think IQ does play an important part. You cannot make a child, with an average IQ, become a top-notch scientist, a 'genius mathematician'. If that were the case, all yuppie children, who are sent to top notch schools, provided with tutors, given every advantage - would all become tops in their field. We know that this isn't the case. Equally, you cannot make a child with a below average IQ, become a CEO of a bank.

rabbit - nice comments on postmodernism. I loathe and detest postmodernism! Is it falling out of fashion? I don't think so. The thing about postmodernism, is that it is incredibly easy to do. You don't need to justify, to validate, to prove your conclusions. No evidence, no data and most certainly no logical relations. All you do is state your opinions, add lots of emotional words - and there it is! Our academic institutions are filled, are packed, with tenured, soft-living, leftist postmodernists, all pontificating about nothing, all kept by the state, i.e., us taxpayers. And, incredibly dumb - filled with rhetoric against industrialism, as rabbit points out, as they type madly away on their industrially dev't computers, cell phones, and etc. (And I'm an academic).

western canadian - I agree with you about our biased immigration policies, which heavily favour French-speaking immigrants - (Quebec deals with immigration on its own) - as Quebec tries to build up its declining population.

ET:

I just read that postmodernism was falling out of fashion. I don't know it myself because I am not an academic - perhaps the claims are optimistic. Some of the stated reasons for postmodernism dying out are:

• The futility of relativism. All arguments eventually deteriorate into "well that's your truth but it's not my truth."
• Some of the people whose works form the foundation of postmodernism were found to be Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.
• Various authors have ripped a strip of hide off of postmodernists for their academic shoddiness. Notable are Sokal, Bricmont, Gross, and Levitt.
• The patently ridiculous and even dangerous conclusions of some postmodernists. Are we to believe that democracy, civil rights, rationality, and free enterprize are all "tools of the oppressor?"

"Tom Penn":

"I never hear a leftists wailing about the use of the death penalty in Iran or China. I never hear a leftist mention 'gay rights', or 'women's rights' in relation to the Arab world."

Indeed. The silence of the "left" on such issues interests me, as does their continued political collusion with the Islamist extremists.

I would have thought something like hard-core Islam would have been pretty well anathema to the political left.

Apparently not.

I can only assume therefore that opposing evil old George Bush, his stooges Harper and Blair and the right end of the political spectrum over-rides all other ideological considerations.

Very Machiavellian.

"ET":

"western canadian - I agree with you about our biased immigration policies, which heavily favour French-speaking immigrants - (Quebec deals with immigration on its own) - as Quebec tries to build up its declining population."

Those "biased" immigration policies have sure been a big success for Québec demographics, haven't they?

On the subject of George Clooney and other wealthy showbiz types when they make great pronouncements on the state of the world, I always think to myself:

"Actors. They're so cute. And they say the darndest things, don't they?"

Then I dismiss them entirely from my mind.

I have diligently dug away at Whittle's article because I felt like the proverbial kid attacking a room full of manure with a shovel: there has to be a propaganda pony under this pile of horseshit somewhere. And there was.

The nature vs. nurture thing - bit of a red herring; it's both, so what?

The "full-court effort to tear down civilization these days" - OK, what, by whom? Obviously TBA.

The "checkride" - descriptive and interesting, leading to the connectivity of civilization (I think.)

"Every time two people come together and trade, wealth is created. Out of thin air. By magic ... Every trade, every transaction, increases the total wealth – for both parties." Ah, we're finally getting to the pony - the virtue of the free market creating wealth for everyone out of "thin air." There are no victims of Enron etc., every marketing ploy and word of advertising is true, there is no zero-sum game in business. You've just got to love these "trade and trust relationships" that give "our incredible, magnificent Western Civilization, the clear, pure tone of a tuning fork."

But: "Any permanent break in the Web of Trust and the Oscars…[and Western civilization] go away." And the first "break" is right there: George Clooney and his ilk who show "why 'liberal' has become a dirty word in America." But fear not, there is safety in - McCarthyism! McCarthy "was right. There were hundreds of people determined to undermine this system and replace it with one that has shot 100 million people in the back of the head at midnight in underground torture cells."

Now this is the first I have heard of 100 million getting shot in the back of the neck by Communist secret police. Up to now the figure of 100 million has only been bandied about in right-wing circles as the number as victims of SOCIALISM, incl. Red Revolution and aftermath, famines, purges, WWII, labour camps, Cold War, Korea, wars of national liberation etc., with the victims of national socialism/fascism thrown into the socialist pool for good measure. But now they get the single-bullet treatment in prison basements. Does Whittle have any idea what he is talking about? Does it even matter?

And then we have real heroes, not the Hollywood traitors, but such as the "3,461 current Medal of Honor winners" who "gave their lives so we could live in the freedom, security and prosperity that alone allows us to be so callow, so cynical, and so relentlessly ungrateful to those who have sacrificed on our behalf." We don't "glorify" them - we glorify Clooney and other "Liberal[s] in Hollywood." And a "civilization that is this debased when it comes to who and what they glorify is in some trouble." Not just that, we complain, and "Civilizations fall because people bitch and complain when the electricity is off for fifteen minutes, and never give a thought to the fact that it has been on for their entire lives." (A defence of deregulation?)

So under the pile of pseudo-science, economics, history, cultural criticism and "high flight", we find the propaganda pony: don't worry, be happy; the free market is great for all; abhor liberals; don't complain about the small stuff, and be prepared to be a hero in war as well as at work. Otherwise civilization as we know it fails.

Who pays for such stuff?

agotfact:

You have a point. Not every trade increases the wealth of both parties - sometimes one of the parties makes a mistake, sometimes both end up regretting the contract.

But it is true that most trades, provided they are freely entered, benefit both parties. Otherwise why would both parties agree to it? This is the fundamental fact behind free enterprize, and is not as appreciated as it should be. It is a stupendous force for creating wealth.

Citing examples where things go wrong doesn't change that. It's like saying "modern medicine doesn't work because my aunt died of cancer."

If you had diligently dug away at Whittle's article, Agitfact, you would have noticed that the first two words of the article were "Chapter One", which would have left you less confused regarding the TBA nature of the article. Perhaps if you are a little more diligent after, say, Chapter Two, you might find yourself a little less confused.

JJM- since the Quebecois 'pur laine' are not reproducing in their previous numbers, then, immigration is an important issue in Quebec. Unfortunately, most of it is going to only one city, Montreal, for Quebec, as a province, is not that welcoming to non-Quebecois and is particularly not keen on 'visible minorities' who tend to settle only in Montreal.

All at stats can: 'immigrant population by place of birth' and 'visible minority population, by census metropolitan areas' and 'proportion of foreign-born population, by census metropolitan area'.

Sorry, Vitruvius, lacking prescience, Chap. 1 was all I had to read and ponder.

"ET":

Croyez-moi, mon ami, immigration isn't helping Québec in the least:

1. They're not getting the French speakers they really want. Unfortunately for all their clever planning, European French speakers just aren't emigrating in any great numbers anymore. Instead, they get Haitians.

2. And curse those immigrants! When they do get to Québec, many of them aren't interested in staying put. The ingrates! Quite a number often see better opportunities in a more westerly direction - or even "due south." Go figure.

"ET":

Croyez-moi, mon ami, immigration isn't helping Québec in the least:

1. They're not getting the French speakers they really want. Unfortunately for all their clever planning, European French speakers just aren't emigrating in any great numbers anymore. Instead, they get Haitians.

2. And curse those immigrants! When they do get to Québec, many of them aren't interested in staying put. The ingrates! Quite a number often see better opportunities in a more westerly direction - or even "due south." Go figure.

ET:
"However, I don't get the impression from the left that they have any notion of causes of social behaviour; they never explore the environment as cause, history as cause. They seem to focus only on an agenda of rejecting social/cultural change in Other Peoples. A romantic Rousseau-based viewpoint."

This is one crucial difference between liberalism and socialism (or at least marxism). Marxism places enormous stress on history and on analysis of the causes and conditions of social institutions and behaviour. Here's a quote: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past" (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Karl Marx 1852).

I'm just trying to convince you that socialism and liberalism are not the same.

Here's an 'ism': People-are-not-ants-ism, and they are not, over the long term, bound to or controlled by any particular doctrine or dogma.

Rabbit: "Some of the people whose works form the foundation of postmodernism were found to be Nazis or Nazi sympathizers."

You're not saying that someone like Churchill Ward, who loves to call contemporary capitalists "little Eichmans" (or more accurately the unfortunate workers caught in the World Trade Center during 9/11) is in fact a big Eichman? Sounds like a case of the end justifying the means.

Wonder what makes the king of the mountain a dirty rascal? Is it because we're not the king?

Nemo2:
"Here's an 'ism': People-are-not-ants-ism, and they are not, over the long term, bound to or controlled by any particular doctrine or dogma."

You have a doctrine, this website has a doctrine, I have a doctrine - almost everybody does. But I don't think anyone here has suggested that people are ants!

Socialism and liberalism are not only not the same, they are nearly opposites. On the other hand, liberalism is not synonymous with left-of-center, or with the Liberal Party either.

Here's today's trivia question: Who said, "I'd rather be considered a socialist than a democratic socialist?"

vitruvius:
"Socialism and liberalism are not only not the same, they are nearly opposites. On the other hand, liberalism is not synonymous with left-of-center, or with the Liberal Party either."

I'm not sure why you say "on the other hand" but, apart from that - absolutely! And what a pleasure it is to meet someone who understands this :-)

agitfact,

If I were to read:

... worry, be scared; government intervention is good for all; abhor conservatives; complain about the small stuff, and be prepared to be a coward in war as well as at work. Otherwise civilization as we know it fails.

would I have found a propaganda pony? Should I feel like the proverbial kid attacking a room full of manure with a shovel?

Should I wonder who pays for such stuff?

Does anyone actually read this shit?

Leftist - I agree completely - that socialism and liberalism are not the same. It never occurred to me that they were. By 'liberalism', I'm sure you mean genuine liberalism, not the Liberal Party of Canada, which is socialist.

Actually, I don't think that Marxism places any stress on history. It stresses mythic or fictional history, what Popper calls 'historicism', which has nothing to do with actual facts of 'what happened this month by x-people to Y-people'.

So, the Marxist analysis posits an essentialist linear force that almost genetically moves societies through stages, much like the biological stages of a life-span. That's not history; that's biological development. Your quote is a good example of historicism.

I say on the other hand, Leftist, because in my opinion the modern political left have aligned themselves with socialism, and the modern political right have aligned themselves with liberalism. I tend to find, now-a-days, that the concept of left-liberal has essentially become a self-contradictory categorization. From where I'm observing, the left, the socialists, and the Liberals have pretty much given up on liberty (it's their precautionary principle at work, don'cha know).

Martin:

Churchill Ward is certainly one of the biggest douches in the universe (the biggest is, of course, the "psychic" John Edwards).

The University of Colorado now wants to turf him from his tenured position for failure to maintain academic standards. Unfortunately it's difficult to separate that issue from the university's objections to his, um, controversial views, which he has a right to even as a tenured professor.

It's seems ironic that postmodernism, whose adherents are almost all socialist or marxist, has such strong roots in fascism. Of course, it can be awfully difficult to tell these things apart.

Hey folks, for the record, the guy you're talkin' about is Ward Churchill, the fake Indian and academic fraud. There's no need to drag some poor guy who happens to be named Churchill Ward into this.

'Gotta agree with lookout on this one--and am grateful to Kate for posting Bill Whittle's article on civilization and why it is that so many entitled eedjits in the West are tearing it down.

Judeo-Christianity is central to the civilization we enjoy in the West: As lookout points out, music, art, dance and drama (Christian churches were the first "theatres" in Europe), educational, medical, and judicial systems of Western democracies have for centuries been given a giant 'boost'--if not the kick start--by individuals holding Judeo-Christian beliefs. Very simply put: "Love the Lord your God...and love thy neighbour as thyself."

I notice a definite chill on this blog whenever this point is made, something I find most unfortunate as it—phobia of religious faith--is indicative of precisely one of the pernicious ailments sucking the life out of our beleaguered civilization.

Faith-filled individuals have been bold risk-takers in establishing the cornerstones of Western democracy--most public hospitals and educational institutions have been founded and funded by Christian and Jewish believers--and to turn a blind eye to this fact is to ignore some powerful medicine with which to revive our afflicted Western civilization.

I'm not for one minute arguing that everyone in the West needs to be a Judeo-Christian, or that each person needs to believe in the tenets of this faith, but I would at least appreciate an acknowledgement of its importance and a recognition of the centrality of Christians and Jews to the philanthropic aspects of every Western democracy, which I suggest are at the root of what is best about our civilization, which are, if you will, the sinews holding together this Web of Trust that Bill Whittle talks about.

To have a discussion about the riches of our civilization without even a nod to millions upon millions of "layers" of Judeo-Christian faith over the millennia is like having a discussion about children without any recognition that their only way of being “here” is because they have mothers.

Our cherished civilization, which is fast going down the toilet--with a nod to the George Clooneys and Michael Moores of the world, not to mention Grand Theft Auto--didn't just happen. One of the main "ingredients" has been the faith of millions and millions of men and women, who have had the courage, foresight, hard-work ethic, love for others and a willingness to sacrifice their lives for others and for the accomplishment of goals beyond their limited and individualistic self-interest. These characteristics seem to be at a premium at the present.

Without the recognition and the appreciation of religious faith and its power to move men, women, and children to be altruistic—to love their “neighbours,” who most often are people they have never met—our civilization is, sadly, likely to be pushed faster to its demise.

Nice posts, ET. I agree with you on nature vs nuture with respect to IQ. Let me add also that sexual preferences, handedness, aptitudes, and talents and some personality traits are hard-wired. That's where psychiatry stands today and I stand with them. But, hard-wired advantages get cancelled or muted if you are raised by idiots or in a culture that is primative - why are Muslims in the ME laggards in everything from science to literature? You can't make a nuclear physicist out of an IQ of 90, but, you sure can kill an IQ of 130 from being one by poor nurturing and ignorance. You can also enhance an IQ to reach its full potential with good nurturing.

Bill Whittle is dead on. We have allowed the left to denigrade our proud and noble culture by participating in their multi-culti fraud that all cultures are equal. Sickening, isn't it.

ET: "Leftist - I agree completely - that socialism and liberalism are not the same. It never occurred to me that they were. By 'liberalism', I'm sure you mean genuine liberalism, not the Liberal Party of Canada, which is socialist."

Yeah, I meant small 'l' liberalism and no, I wouldn't identify that with the Liberal party. But I agree with Alasdair MacIntyre who said that in America there are conservative liberals and liberal liberals. (The situation is slightly more complex in Canada.) I'm not sure why you call the Liberal party socialist. Is it because they have (especially in the past) favoured a certain amount of state intervention? I'd call that slightly modified capitalism but not, by any stretch of the imagination, socialism.

"So, the Marxist analysis posits an essentialist linear force that almost genetically moves societies through stages, much like the biological stages of a life-span. That's not history; that's biological development. Your quote is a good example of historicism."

Popper thought that marxism was unfalsifiable. I don't think that's true but it's hard to discuss falisfiability in the comments section of a blog! Anyway, it's true that some Marxists have talked about history in the way you describe. But the quote I cited suggests a more (if you'll pardon the term) dialectical understanding.

Anyway, thanks for the civil and thoughtful response.

Vitruviuw wrote:
"I say on the other hand, Leftist, because in my opinion the modern political left have aligned themselves with socialism, and the modern political right have aligned themselves with liberalism. I tend to find, now-a-days, that the concept of left-liberal has essentially become a self-contradictory categorization. "

I agree that it's a self-contradiction. That was part of my point. But I would also say that most people who oppose the political right are in fact liberals (though of a different sort than those on the political right). My argument is that it is highly inaccurate to call these people socialists. They are in fundamental disagreement with socialists.

Vitruvius:

I meant to type "Churchill, Ward" but my comma key keeps sticking. Honest to god.

Ural,

you are helping make my point. Of course I would not wonder if I read your version, since it is bare-bones and to the point (as well as being entirely predictable and expectable under the circumstances.) But if you were to bury it in soft soap and advertise it as a favourite read and matter for serious consideration, I would scratch my head.

Vitruvius, excuse me for mistyping your nom-de-keyboard!

...multiculturalism at work in canada...

http://www.sammcgill.com/hate.html

leftist - I think that falsifiability can be discussed on a blog! And I'd agree with Popper that Marxism is not falsifiable; it's a utopian ideology and therefore operates outside of 'real life'.

I don't think that your quote expresses a dialectics; instead, it seems to me to posit a linear determinism, where the present is determined by the past.

new kid - I wonder that you don't reference the Greek and Roman contribution to our society and instead stree the religious contribution of Christianity and Judaism. I think that the intellectual contribution of the Greeks, in particular, was enormously influential. The Islamic world doesn't have any equivalent 'early democracies' as were found in the Greek and Roman world.

And, the Islamic world has essentially, no science - that's an enormous problem for it means that they live in a world that is primarily fictional rather than factual.

I meant to type "Churchill, Ward" but my comma key keeps sticking. Honest to god.

Thanks for the chuckle, Rabbit, Brer.

Dhimmi, Me No

Speaking of civilization, terrorists and insurgents come from one of sorts. A civilization I mean.

It they were to be caught and sent back alive, but with , ah lets say a bullet in one of their knees, they could fully enjoy their civilization for 20 30 years. Some fun that'd be eh?

Lots of time to think how thing could be different for them if their " civilization" had evolved, even just a little.

Mean?.... I know,I know.

Vitruvius's short history of the world: Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the founding documents of the United States of America. So I would have to say that the contribution of the judeo-christian models of various social and philosohical mechanisms have been a notably significant part of the progress of civilization since, let's see, well, the Magna Carta was June 15, 1215. That'll do for me.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my my my my my.

definite keeper there. web of trust. civilization.

ooooooooooooooooo jeez. Im gonna hafta go over this one a couple dozen times to get it down pat.

Robert J:

I hear it's available as a "Talking Book".

regarding progress:

in economics, the one aspect Ive seen lacking in all formal presentations in an adequate contrast in the time frame of transactions.

some deals may be counterproductive or not cost beneficial in the short term.

but are we planning on obliterating ourselves in the short term?

blue box promotion is an example I cite to defend it. in the short term blue box recycling costs more than just heaving it all in the same truck and then off to the same landfill.

but in the long term, recycling means existing landfills get their life expectancy extended by 50 - 100 %. and the FIRST TIME you dont have to scrounge around and pay millions for a new one is the moment the blue box recycling program finally pays for itself.

short term, long term, you need to consider the TIME FRAME of a policy, practice, transaction, process, etc. THAT is the REAL measure of progress.

vitruvius - I very much like your short history..of the 'civilized' world.

You are right; I left out the Egyptians and they should indeed be there.

Do you realize - and I agree with your list - but, your positing that the Judeo-Christian influence began with the Magna Carta of 1215 means that you are suggesting that the influence of these religious models was based on their modernized, reformed versions - rather than their early versions. In the case of Christianity, the early 'selection' of the Athanasian rather than Arian interpretation meant an intellectual inability to question, explore, to adapt to the world. This was overturned by the 13th c. reformation phase.

I fully agree with your inclusion of the founding documents of the USA.

It's a good history. Notice how it step by step, enables questions, analysis, and requires responsibility and accountability.

I didn't mention the Greek and Roman civilizations, ET, because, though they contributed a great deal to our present civilization, both of these civilizations fell; we have a lot of broken statuary and potsherds to attest to their fall.

I am neither a theologian nor a classicist, but assert, nonetheless, that for the past 2000 centuries, the foundational beliefs of Judeo-Christianity have been front and centre in the building of Western democracies, with much that is best from both the Greek and Roman civilizations having influenced the Judeo-Christian cultures upon which our modern democracies are built.

I don't want my main point, however, to be obscured by the discussion of the merits of the Greek and Roman civilizations, of which there were many.

Simply put, again, without due deference to Judeo-Christianity (and its myriad contributions to Western democracies) in a discussion about maintaining Western civilization, we cut off access to one of the main arteries which pumps, and has pumped, life blood into our civilization.

The very fact that this subject is pretty much taboo in the public square leads me to think that Western civilization is closer to the eve of destruction than I like to think.

agitfact > "Now this is the first I have heard of 100 million getting shot in the back of the neck by Communist secret police...... But now they get the single-bullet treatment in prison basements. Does Whittle have any idea what he is talking about? Does it even matter?"

I think it's plain he was writing figuratively. Anyway if you'd like to bone up on where the numbers come from, I'd suggest you read R.J. Rummel's "Death By Government". His conservative estimate is somewhere around 160 million. And the numbers attributed directly to war represent a very small fraction of this.

"Does it matter?" Nah! Wasn't it that great hero of the left, Stalin, who said someting like 'one death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic'?

JR,

the "Does it even matter?" refers to whether Whittle knows what he is talking about, not whether a single person or 160 million "got it in the neck" (to borrow a phrase.) And when you come right down to it, the former does not matter because there seems to be enough credulity to go around.

civilizations founding documents:

let me expand of vitruis inclusion of the declaration of independence (founding documents bla bla):

this was a first.

this was a real pioneering first for the human race.

for the FIRST time a naiscant nation's occupants declared that by virtue of being born human, you had within you, intrinsic and INALIENABLE rights.

not dependent on da gubbamint deciding you had rights, as here in canuckistan, but suffice that you are BORN with them.

they shucked monarchy. no taxation without representation.

but the business of SPELLING OUT the FACT that the rights were ALREADY THERE was a first. the declaration didnt create the rights; they were already there. the declaration merely pointed this out.

etc etc

the rest as they say, is history.

and it is why I have such admiration of the american model and feel great sadness when it is corrupted and misappropriated by the likes of george dubya.

Yes, ET, I am suggesting that the influence of these religious models was based on their modernized, reformed versions, rather than their early versions. Speaking as a modernist, I abhor both pre-modern barbarism, and post-modern nihlism.

And Kid, although it is the case that in the nominal sense the Greek and Roman civilizations did fall, it is also the case that their greatest contributions to the human experience live on today in western civilization. So, at least in that sense, I'd still consider them successful.

Now, based on my 10,000-odd year history, I would have to say that forecasts to the effect that humanity is on the eve of the imminent demise of the progress of civilization are likely to be disappointed.

agitfact,

But if you were to bury it in soft soap and advertise it as a favourite read and matter for serious consideration, I would scratch my head.

I agree with you. OK, just a couple more questions. If instead of a individual (Kate) recommending to read another individuals essay ... what about ... say a publicly funded institution ... like CBC ... saying those things. Is it news or propaganda? What about a collective ... like MSM, PPG ... does everything change? ... news now?

I'm a simple country boy ... don't understand all the big words ... help.

Again, I agree with vitruvius. The Greek and Roman civilizations didn't fall/disappear; they transformed into the 'western civilization' as it too underwent transformations.

I also agree with vitruvius' focus on the importance of the reformed rather than pre-reformation Christianity.

i also don't assume that our western civilization will disappear. It works too well; it's the only mode that enables humans to live - as humans - see Robert J's notes on the American Constitution.

I'll disagree with robert j's opinion of Bush. I'm very supportive of Bush and his actions.

Vitruvius, I did acknowledge the contributions that both the Greek and Roman civilizations have made to Western civilization, though their societies/cultures took a mighty tumble which, so far, Judeo-Christianity hasn't--but sure could if we give up on the principles and foundational truths it has bequeathed to us and upon which Western democracies have proceeded in the past 2000 years.

I sincerely hope that your optimism is justified--and realize that history should be looked at in the long view. Your willingness to "allow" religion into this dicussion is heartening, however, and speaks of "progress"!

I don't have a link for this, so it could be apocryphal, but I recall that when one of the lads who was caught up in the sweep that netted the inmates at Guantanamo was found to be a non-combatant and was released (back in the early days of this latest struggle) he was asked by some reporter what he thought the US should do to compensate him, and he said he wanted a green card.

These are only my suspicions, I have no crystal ball, but I suspect that the vast majority of humans want the benefits of the history of civilization that we in Canada enjoy at this time. I think that the reason that this slow but inexorable march of progress has succeeded is because, in practice, it tends to appeal to humans more than all the alternatives combined, net net.

ET, I would very much like to hitch a ride on your assertion that you "don't assume [like Vitruvius] that our western civilization will disappear. It works too well; it's the only mode that enables humans to live - as humans - see Robert J's notes on the American Constitution."

But I'm not as optimistic as you. I'd like to know what is the reason for your enthusiasm--or, at the very least, for your optimism? I agree with you that Western civilization works very well, (it has been hard fought for and hard won), but why couldn't it break down and crumble the way the Greek and Roman civilizations did? What makes you think that Western civilization might not go the way of other civilizations?

What happens when living as humans beings begins to not happen? I'm seeing alarming evidence all around me that this is the case, and it's happening at an alarming rate; our humanity is badly slipping...

What is it that will keep Western civilization from going the way of all of the other civilizations?

ET says "It works too well"

There seems to be no shortage of people who want our civilization to end up as rubble.

The scarier ones are the ones who were born and raised here. They want their leftist utopia and they don't seem too concerned about trashing every good thing about western civilization.

Bill Whittle makes for a good read as are some of the comments here. I'll not get into the debate now as some people are starting to get into an academic tizzy. Being a quasi-hippy type in the 60's and early 70's, I enjoyed a lot of the day but joining the reserves during that time also meant that I had a sense of duty and responsibility that I still carry today. I never developed that attitude of entitlement and for that I am greatful. Just my two cents worth

You guys are going to be Bitch slapped when Kate reads this.

Anon (ural)

Sorry Kate,

Just F'ing around. No disrespect indented.

new kid, I altogether concur.

AND I too notice a real chill factor here re the foundational importance of the Judeo-Christian dispensation re Western Civilization AND the evidence of its serious decline, on display each day in the behaviour of children and adults alike at just about any public school one cares to consider in this country and in most western democracies.

I'm disappointed by this apparent blind spot at sda. (New kid's is the only one in 87 posts which has addressed the points I've made about religion and education, which, I believe, are central to Bill Whittle's thesis.) Though I agree with so much of what is posited here, there appears to be tone deafness re the seminal influences of both religion and public education: It's as if the story of who we are as a society starts more than half way through and the unpleasant ending's simply ignored. Or as if one refuses to admit that one's black hair, beautiful eyes, high IQ, and seriously bad temper have nothing at all to do with an unpopular grandparent. (That kind of selective reality is what I expect--and what we regularly get--from the left.)

This disregard of certain facts one would prefer to ignore seems to me to be one of the symptoms of the kind of society many of us here fear we are becoming.

ET's assertion that "i [sic] also don't assume that our western civilization will disappear. It works too well" is, I think, disingenuous: I'm sure Rome thought its civilization worked too well to collapse too. (And most of us here know full well that freedom has a price--and often a very steep one: "Working well" is no guarantee of either success or perpetuity.)

In 2006, the ideals of relativism, self-gratification-- immediately--and radical equality have replaced those of truth, loving one's neighbour as oneself, and honouring any idea of tradition and age-old wisdom. Our education system is both an example and incubator of the latter world view. So I definitely don't share ET's optimism about the fate of our civilization.

new kid asks, "What is it that will keep Western civilization from going the way of all of the other civilizations?" That's an excellent question.

How can anybody say that the LPC is not socialistic ? They have been in power most of the time, and their policies. Socialism; taking wealth from some and giving it to others. What else would you call working almost half the year to pay the "state" it's taxes. Income Tax, GST, PST, property tax, fees of all kinds,

Whoops! Re the education system, I meant FORMER world view.

(Actually, the answer to new kid's question is to reclaim the latter world view, though putting genies back in bottles has proven to be notoriously difficult. And once the genie's out, often the ending's really bad.)

lookout,

I don't think it's particularly fair to tell others what they need to be talking about. I really don't see a big shout down denying that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the western world -- that's really kind of a "no duh" from my perspective.

I do find it interesting that the International Left likes to pretend that American politics have been essentially taken hostage by "Fundamentalist Christians". Odd to think that anyone in their right mind could point to Americans, and not Islamofascist terrorists, as being the "religious nutters" on the world scene.

Here's a funny link I found at Sandmonkey that's somewhat relevant to the topic: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2002/jihad_tv-p1.php

Kate and fellow travellers

Why no attention to the massacre in Qana today? Is this just another example of acceptable collateral damage?

First off John, this isn't exactly the thread for it. Second if you go to the 27th you'll see Kate is otherwise engaged, and also that is the open thread. See you there?

hi
i just read that my taxes, my money was given to some people in goverment, where is my tax reduction? i'm conservative and i'm pissed off.

John Daly:

Anyone who takes the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine" seriously shouldn't be taken seriously.

Dear "John Daly":

Anyone who takes the lyrics of "Imagine" seriously shouldn't be taken seriously.

Sorry, Kate, John and others.

My double posting there was due entirely to personal incompetence...

Ural,

sorry I did not check back last night, but I got involved in other matters, incl. the news (MSM yet!)

"News or propaganda?" The news is what happens, propaganda is how this is bent (or spun) to suit a particular purpose. For instance, conservatives and neo-cons are convinced that there is an MSM propaganda conspiracy against them. This would be news to me (if proved,) but great conservative/neo-con propaganda in any case, since it shifts responsibility for prior (and any future) lack of success to others.

Actually, propaganda should be anathema to both liberals and conservatives. Both profess freedom and democracy, or government with the informed consent of the governed. How can that consent be informed if is it deliberately dis- or misinformed through propaganda? Are we really down to "may the most effective propaganda win?"

new kid, lookout - the reason that I think western civilization won't 'fall' is because it works. I'll try to briefly explain.

Roman and Greek civilization, i.e., ideological principles of truth, of social order, of justice, of man's role, etc, didn't fall; they transformed into western civilization.

The Roman political, the Greek political domains fell - but that was because the population had become too large for those particular political systems to organize. The Greek 'polis' could handle about 5,000 people; the Roman imperial system had stretched too far to manage in a centralist manner.

But the ideology - as espoused by Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and others - remained firmly developed and moved to emerge as the basic infrastructure of the western ideological structure, which could, politically, organize a larger population. This is post-reformation, when the political structure that emerged, based on the ideological principles of Roman and Greek thought, and the reformed religious principles in Christian thought - enabled a society that privileged questions, reason, analysis, and enabled innovative technologies to be developed to support larger and larger populations.

This is a civilization, therefore, that enables large populations and which attempts to 'manipulate' the env't to provide food, water, housing, to control disease and enable people to live within reasonably healthy lives.

In comparison, the Islamic ideology cannot enable large populations. The fact that they NOW have large populations is due only to their oil-ability to purchase the technological results of western civilization. The Islamic ideology is based only - I'll repeat that - ONLY on fiction. Not facts. It is not interested in facts and indeed, insists that its population reject facts. Only fictions are of importance and they must be maintained in the face of all factual evidence that denies those fictions.

So- Islamic ideology cannot become supreme in the world, because the global population is too large to be supported by such an ideology - an ideology that is totally and completely unable to act within science. Islamic ideology is not a scientific ideology.

Equally, Islamic tribalism cannot politically, govern a global population of 6 billion. Tribalism, which is a no-change, no growth, kin-based political system, can only operate within smaller populations. It falls apart within million-size populations because it cannot control dissent except by force.

So- the reason I maintain that western civilization, aka the scientific paradigm based on reason and evidence, WILL survive, is because it is the only system that can: nurture a global population in the multi-millions.

Just assume that it falls. The end of reason, the end of questions, the end of individual freedom, the end of dissent. The introduction of a perspective based only on fiction. No facts.

It can't happen- there are too many people to control and keep 'away from facts' and 'focused on fiction'. Nazi Germany and Communism both tried to force massive populations into fictional worlds. Both failed. A fiction-based society can only work if the population is small, small...and requires no innovation, no new technologies.

Our world is always requiring innovations. Biologically, new diseases will always emerge, the climate has changed since the planet was formed and will continue that way; new tactics of interaction with the env't will always be required..and so on. If you set up a world society that has NO ability to live within a factual world and can only live within a Fictional world - then, we'll see massive epidemics and diseases to rival any Black Plague, as the world population would have to reduce itself by about 5 billion, in order to reduce pressures to innovate.

Am I making any sense?

Another loose end from last night. JR at 09:36 PM drew attention to R.J. Rummel's "Death By Government." Found an electronic copy readily available at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Just to continue with my speculations about why western civilization, aka the scientific method of individual questions, exploration, based on reason and facts - will continue - what we are now seeing in the world is a sociopolitical change.

We are moving, globally, from an era of separate and sovereign nation-states to what I refer to as a complex-adaptive network of 'locally operative networked systems', where a sovereign nation is locally governed but operationally networked with other 'locally governed systems'.

To achieve this, the deep asymmetries between the various areas of the globe must be reduced. The world must operate more homogeneously in many areas, while retaining local differences. (Both are required).

But, the basic general operating structure of the globe must be homogeneous. All must operate within a civic political mode, ie, democracy. That's the basic requirement. And, all must have an industrial economy. Those two- are the basics.

At the moment, the world is crackling under the tensions produced because some areas of the world are too, politically, different. That would be OK if those areas chose to remain isolate and 'live on their own islands'. The problem is - they want 'in' with the western world. But, they refuse that basic infrastructure of democracy and industrialism. That's the tribal dictatorships of the ME and in Africa.
The ME is, in my view, just at the cusp of moving out of tribalism. It is fighting very hard to maintain it - but - I think the 'tide has turned'. But, it's an enormous fight, by both sides - the ME and the West.

China and India are moving out of their former ways. China was both tribal and peasant. It is now industrial and capitalist; democracy will follow. India may be democratic in part, but, it still is too strongly a peasant economy and must become more industrial.

Africa - is still a mess and reveals what would happen when massive populations refuse to enable democracy and industrialism. I think Zimbabwe is an example of this rejection of both democracy and industrialism. The people are starving and dying of disease.
N. Korea is an example of the rejection of democracy. The people are starving.

The West is the only civilization that has developed an ideology that enables progress, growth; therefore, it is the only civilization that can sustain massive populations in the world. There is NO OTHER mode that can do this. That's why it will survive - because it has to.

Tom Penn:

Vis a vis your comment that you don't detect a "shout down [on this blog] denying that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the western world..." With all due respect, you have not been blogging here for very long...at least that's my perception.

How many comments on this thread did it take for someone to bring up the central role of Judeo-Christian principles in the shaping of the Western world--and the attack that they are now under? Let me count...

62 posts!!

That's strange, isn't it, given that Judeo-Christian principles' being concertedly and consistently under attack by Lefties in our educational and judicial systems, the MSM and the entertainment industries have contributed big-time to threats to the Web of Trust/Western civilization that Bill Whittle describes in his essay?

It's heartening to see that for you, the centrality of Judeo-Christian principles in the establishment and maintenance of Western democracies is "really kind of a 'no duh'..."--it is from mine, too--but sadly it isn't a universally held perspective in the West, even on the part of those who oppose the direction "the Left" is taking us in.

Religion has all but been declared a no-go area in the public square. As an example: I'm still awaiting ET's answer to my non-rhetorical question at the end of my last post:

What is it that will keep Western civilization from going the way of all of the other civilizations?

As lookout puts it, a "blind spot" for sure. It's often the blind spots that do us in.

While you were posting your last comment, ET, I was writing mine.

Can I assuem that this comment by you--"The West is the only civilization that has developed an ideology that enables progress, growth; therefore, it is the only civilization that can sustain massive populations in the world. There is NO OTHER mode that can do this. That's why it will survive - because it has to" is your answer to my just-posted question?

If this is your answer, then I can't help but be disappointed. Your usual deference to impeccable logic has failed you here. Because something "has to" survive because "NO OTHER mode"/individual/group can perform a function, it will, ipso facto, survive?

I could equally say that because a baby needs his/her mother, even though she's doing drugs, is drinking too heavily, neglects her child, etc., she nevertheless "has to" survive in order to take care of her child. I'm clear that, rightly, you would accuse me of a circular argument.

But this is wishful thinking, not based on facts. If Western civilization insists on cutting itself off from the root of its growth and progress--which, I am suggesting, is the Judeo-Christian roots of its very successful, until now, judicial and educational systems, the envy of the world, which is why the immigration patterns for hundreds of years are from non-democracies/theocracies to countries whose modi operandi are based on J-C principles--it is entirely possible for our Western civilization to collapse.

I don't WANT this to happen. I am fighting it with all my might. But just because I don't want it to happen doesn't meant that it won't.

Great discussion!

"Kick it's Ass" is where Canada seems to fall down. Socialism has killed our confidence and replaced it with fear.
Trudeau was an idiot!

Tom, thanks for your response. I always appreciate your posts.

You say, "I don't think it's particularly fair to tell others what they need to be talking about."

I hear you. Obviously, none of us likes to have our views prescribed by someone else. Fair enough. I guess my quibble is that certain views, clearly stated and quite verifiable, seem to be completely ignored here over and over. Strange, to me, because the points I sometimes make about the Judeo-Christian foundation of much that is good in our culture and which many of us here lament the loss of, are directly related to the topics of religion and education.

It seems to me that discussing Western Civilization and its decline in a religous and educational vacuum is like trying to play basketball with no rules and no ball. If we're going to have a serious discussion, then it seems to me that all aspects need to be considered.

You also say, "I really don't see a big shout down denying that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the western world -- that's really kind of a "no duh" from my perspective." I appreciate the "no-duh" part with which I'm obviously in total agreement! And I'd agree that there's no big shout down. What there does seem to be, however, is a kind of shunning: At least, that's what it feels like. Imagine being at a dinner party where an important discussion is going on and one's pertinent, carefully stated, and, as I said, verifiable remarks are ignored virtually every time. The silence is every bit as potent as a shout down.

My thesis is quite simple (and a direct response to Bill Whittle's article):

1) The unparallelled good of Western Civilization (Bill Whittle's thesis)--which is now under direct and sustained attack by an implacable enemy--is the direct descendent of the Judeo-Christian dispensation. (You seem to agree. new kid does. Anybody else? The silence seems to suggest otherwise.)

2) The West's deliberate rejection of its spiritual roots for emotionalism, moral relativism, and phony equality have seriously weakened it. An even greater enemy than the Islamic terrorists, I believe, is our internal weakness and decadence. [The Islamists are quite right on that score.] The West seems to have a case of the Stockholm Syndrome, when we seem to have more pity for our sworn enemies (see MSM) than we do for ourselves and our children! (Very unhappy ending coming up: How about good-bye Western Civilzation?)

It seems to me that the West is now like an orphan, cut off from the riches and nourishment of its past. (Bill Whittle says so but completely ignores the massive shoulders of Judeo-Christianity on which Western Civilization rests: big hole in his doughnut!) The huge wreck of the public education system is an "outward and visible sign" of the decadence of the West and, because our schools have a key role in the formation of the next generation, what's happening there is of vital importance. The fact that we're turning out a critical mass of entitled "surrender monkeys" rather than responsible citizens "should"--there's that word!--be a matter of concern.

Of surprise and concern to me is that both Bill Whittle and, it seems, most regulars here, are only willing to have half a discussion on the topic of Western Civilization and its survival. WHY IS THIS? (I have my theories.)

I think we all deserve better. Let's open up the discussion: If people disagree, that's fine. That's what debate's about: parry and counter parry. What I don't appreciate is responding to a parry and then being dropped. Out of courtesy and respect, when we're involved in a discussion, I believe we owe each other a reasoned response. (As we all know, the trolls are notorious for bad manners: They make all kinds of provocative comments and put-downs and then run away.)

The opportunity to discuss topics of vital concern to all of us with others who care about the same things is the main draw of sda. Visiting this site is always one of the highlights of my day. Thanks, Kate, and everyone, have a good day.

P.S. Tom, the Sandmonkey link is hilarious. Thanks. And I altogether agree re who the "religious nutters" really are.

Many thanks, ET, for your thoughtful respose, even though I don't entirely agree with your analysis!

You say, "So- the reason I maintain that western civilization, aka the scientific paradigm based on reason and evidence, WILL survive, is because it is the only system that can: nurture a global population in the multi-millions." In a reasoanable world, so far, so good.

However, our Islamofascist enemies care not a whit for any of this--as you've so ably demonstrated many times. What happens if they wipe out the infrastructures of the West and most of us, a definite possibility? Forget collateral damage: One of their main goals is to wipe us out! So, if their nefarious plan for us is successful, Western Civilization will, indeed, disappear--at least for the time being. (Maybe a future Renaissance would reverse that.)

As the West seems to have lost the moral and political will to fight for its life--see my earlier post--I believe that Western Civilization, already very weak internally, is in very big trouble.

Seems to me that Western Civilization will atrophy because of apathy and the fear of 'offending others'.

"Suppose they gave a civilization, and nobody came"........that sorta thing.

new kid, lookout -

Yes, I agree that, on the surface and perhaps more deeply, my argument that western civilization must surive 'just because it must' is a circular, Kipling Just So argument. In other words, useless as an argument. However, I arrive at this conclusion from, I hope, deeper principles - which are based on energy dynamics.

First - let me say, with reference to Judeo-Christian - I'm an atheist, so, I'm not involved in the notion of a metaphysical agent, but, I strongly believe that reason and logic can provide sound moral principles.

So, with reference to lookout's points of:
1) I consider that western civilization is derived from Greek and Roman principles of reason, the role of man as scientist and explorer, the focus on facts rather than fiction, the role of government. The reformation phase of Christianity added to this basic infrastructure, a role of temperance, collaboration ie, it was in particular, a non-kin based ideology (Islam is kin-based)and therefore, permits all people to be 'members of the society.

Those are the TWO basic zones of western civilization. The Greek/Roman influence which brought reason, facticity and logic, and a civic mode of government and the Christian influence which brought the end of tribalism within a society and a focus on 'humanity' rather than 'kin'.

So- this is the set-up for western civilization.

2)Postmodernism, or relativism, or a focus on fiction and a rejection of facts is the home-base of a large number of people, but not all.

My point in this, is that we cannot expect ALL people to operate by the principles noted above:
reason and facticity; and the acceptance of all as members of a common humanity.

I'd say that we'll probably get a fluctuating proportion of those who prefer the fictional world to the factual. So, they will remain in supersition, in a peasant mentality, in a postmodern mentality. There's no difference among these mentalities!

At the moment, in the social sciences and humanities, these are dominant in our universities. They can never make any headway in science, of course.
They are half in evidence in our political realm - where the fictional and the factual will always exist. So, the fictional parties in Canada are the socialist ones: the Liberals, NDP, Bloc. The only factual one is the CPC.

Second - I'll try to explain my quite obviously useless circular argument..that western civilization will survive because it will survive.

I first consider the facts. (1) The world's enormous population which requires constant support of food, water, housing, medicine. These are only possible within an industrial economy. A peasant or non-industrial economy cannot support this size of population.

(2) The industrial economy can only operate within an ideology that privileges the individual. The individual is, as 'not part of the mass of jello'..unique. Open to questions, and wondering WHY. (Every three year old's favourite word..apart from 'NO').

So, an industrial economy requires individualism, because it requires constant adaptive reactions to the new problems emerging in the env't. New diseases, new requirements for housing, water, food, transportation, communication, organization.

In order to develop these new technologies, the individual must live within a world of FACTS. Not Fictions.

Therefore, the individual must be encouraged to use objective observation, logic, reason, evidence, experiment. And, also, to have within him, the emotion of HOPE for a Better World that is CHANGED.
Note - the Islamic world, based on FICTIONS, not facts, also hopes for a Better world, but it is an UNCHANGED world - a world 'as it was 1500 years ago, a Purity of Origin. The Islamic world rejects the current world, rejects progress, and wants to go back-in-time.

This focus on the individual as someone who invents, who helps all people (not just his family) and who uses reason, questions..is the basis of western civilization.

It arose because increased populations require innovative, rapid-response adaptive tactics, in the world.

Back to that world population of 6 billion and rising to 9 billion. There is no method of sustaining that population except by a socioeconomic and political organization that enables rapid responses to provide 'best solutions' to the environmental and population pressures of this population. The only socioeconomic and political method that works as a rapid response complex adaptive system..is western civilization.

IF this civilization were to disappear, then, the global population could not be sustained. Absolutely impossible. It would have to drop to pre-industrial levels, to at least one billion.
A drop of 5 billion!
That would then mean, the end of industrialism, which could not be sustained with such a small global population. You'd be back to peasant agriculture.
And, back to tribalism; and back to fiction rather than fact.

Could it happen? Well, anything is theoretically possible, but pragmatically, I very much doubt that 'history goes backwards'. So, you can't dissipate that size population and that massive amount of knowledge into thin air.

A complex organism doesn't reduce to a simple organism. Our world is complex, in its capacities to organize energy (which includes people)...and so, I don't think that it can 'go backwards' to a planet without industrialism, and with a vastly reduced population.

Therefore, western civilization won't disappear.

I have to concur with the secular humanists like ET and Vitruvius here who have so brilliantly defended the status quo: life is good, our civilization is the best, western civilization is good and clearly on the right path, and Bush is a great president. There is great reason for optimism, once we deal with our biggest threat: Islamofascism.

As an objectivist, of course, I believe in the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his...

Bitch paint my toenails.

Yes dear.

by the way, lookout, with your reference to the Islamic mode 'taking over the world' - my point is that this is impossible.
I admit they are certainly trying, but, pragmatically, it is impossible.

The reason is, that the Islamic ideology is both non-industrial and non-collaborative. By the latter, I mean that it is purely kin-based; it is tribe-based. It considers other peoples as 'dhimmi'. The Christian religion, after the reformation, was/is a humanist religion in that it considers all human beings as equal members of the collective population. This means that a Christian society (post reformation) can admit anyone into the society as equal members.

The Islamic religion, since it considers massive populations as 'not members of the tribe' - will require a mode of governance that keeps these non-members under strict control. Totalitarianism can't be maintained for generations, because it requires a LOT of energy to restrain and control people. If you have small populations, then, you can keep the people all fearful and controlled. But, with the massive global populations, it's impossible.

Then, the Islamic ideology is focused only on fiction. Not facts. Therefore, it completely lacks any capacity to 'be scientific'. It can't produce any new technology - and never has. It lives off the technology of the free West.
So- if this free western individual is stopped dead - then - technology will also end. Those massive Islamic populations won't be sustained in a world without industrial technology and scientific advances.

I'm not saying our current battle is easy; it's hard, it has to be fought. The Islamic world is trying desperately to remain in its medieval world; it wants the benefits of industrialism but refuses to participate; it thinks it can buy those technological advances and yet, keep its people enslaved within feudalism and a fictional world. It won't work. But, it's a battle right now.

I think many of us are afraid, not of the Islamists 'taking over the world', but rather of the Islamists 'destroying the world'.

Thanks, new kid, for your post. You're absolutely right about the anti-Christian bias that threatens the good order of present day western democracies.

You wrote, "That's [the persistent absence at sda of even a nod to the J-C dispensation by most posters] strange, isn't it, given that Judeo-Christian principles' being concertedly and consistently under attack by Lefties in our educational and judicial systems, the MSM and the entertainment industries have contributed big-time to threats to the Web of Trust/Western civilization that Bill Whittle describes in his essay?"

I think it's important that people realize that, as I type--and I'm no Hedy Fry!--Canadian Christians are being persecuted to the point of even being fined and jailed, as well as losing their jobs, for expressing peacefully their views on PC sanctioned issues. Talk about the Web of Trust being threatened! How about tyrannical police state rather than a democracy? Here. In Canada. I'm not making this up.

The Charter is being used by the lefty elites in Canada as a bludgeon to brutally keep in check people--many of them Christians--who don't toe the PC party line. All of this is authoritatively documented in Rory Leishman's recent book, Against Judicial Activism. Canadians who care about freedom and justice "should" read this excellent book, which shows just how far from these lofty democratic ideals Canada has descended.

I'll go so far as to say that the further the West moves from our Judeo-Christian roots, the more unreasonable and tyrannical we become, all in the name of equality. (Sounds a bit like the French--very anti-Christian--Revolution and its aftermath, doesn't it?)

With the Islamic wolves prowling about outside the ramparts (with quite a few already inside too) and the western propensity to blame itself for its enemies grievances--good grief!!!--we're in big trouble.

nemo2 -I don't think there is any answer to your fear, other than to fight against such a result. That's what we did with Nazi fascism and communism.

Remember, if they destroy the west, they destroy themselves, for the Islamic world is completely unable to sustain itself, within its own political organization and intellectual mode - based as it is only on fiction, and its rejection of factual reality, reason and logic.

The reason the Islamic world can't sustain itself within its own political organization is because it is organized tribally rather than in a civic mode. Tribalism won't work with those massive increased Islamic populations. Exporting immigrants to Europe and N. America hasn't eased the problem. So- it has led to fascism, as the tribial rulers strive to retain control and power.

And of course, the Islamic world's focus on fiction means that it is unable to invent or develop any technology.

The West is starting to wake up to this ME fascism - and so are the emerging industrial states, such as India and China.

I remain optimistic.

ET, thanks again. And I agree with most of what you say. However, I think it's a pretty big leap from, logically, we SHOULD triumph over the Islamofacists to we WILL. I'm not so sure.

I think that multiculturalism, which is an enormous error, with its culturalism relativism, was/is an attempt to deal with the 'mixture' of peoples resulting from globalization.

By globalization, I mean that peoples living previously more or less spatially and temporally isolated from each other, are now 'mixed' both permanently and temporarily. Plane travel, immigration, communication links have all helped to 'mix' previously isolated peoples.

Multiculturalism is an ignorant and misguided attempt to accept these 'new peoples'. Its ignorance is based on its notion of 'not changing' these newcomers, but, 'accepting them as they are'.

But 'as they are', which rejects evaluation, means that we are accepting ideologies based on FICTIONS rather than FACTS...as EQUAL!

We are accepting lifestyles based on tribal politics as equal to lifestyles based on the general law and order of a civic political mode!

We are also insisting that these newcomers not change, not abandon their tribalism, their fiction, but remain 'as they were'. So, we in the west have changed over the centuries, but, we forbid these peoples to do so!

Multiculturalist relativism has to be abandoned. Rapidly. And, we have to openly acknowledge the primacy of reason, logic, facts, individual exploration and questioning - and the ideology that we are all members of the same population, and not splintered into hyphenated 'distinct peoples'.

The Charter requires amendments, for it's a disastrous document. In my view, its primary agenda is to set up bilingualism, aka the primacy of French, in our gov't and in all authoritative positions in Canada. Most of the Charter is devoted to issues around bilingualism, sections 16-24, with many subsections; the LONGEST part of the Charter.

And the Charter doesn't guarantee individual freedoms, for the multicultural rights of groups takes precedence over any individual.
Section 2, a brief section of only four lines, refers to the freedom of the individual. BUT, Section 15, a much longer section, removes these individual rights under the notion of Equality Rights, for it says that individual equality "does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

Got that? Your individual rights can be trumped by any law, program or activity that is focused on 'disadvantaged groups'...whatever that means. So, your right to be a CEO might be reduced because the company requires you to be a 'member of a visible minority group of the X-religion, transsexual, below the age of consent, and with an obvious mental disability'.
You get my point.

And section 27 reinforces this dominance of the 'distinct group', for it says "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians'.
Huh? What does this mean in practice?

ET, you wrote to nemo2, "I don't think there is any answer to your fear, other than to fight against such a result. That's what we did with Nazi fascism and communism."

But things are very different now: In WW II, the West had a lot of confidence in the rightness of what it was doing. There was no MSM and other lefty elites subverting the struggle or critical mass of gullible civilians swallowing the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The treasonous fifth columns in the West--MSM, universities, the UN, international courts (with our very own poisonous snake, Louise Arbor)--are subverting our response and are very dangerous.

A united, confident West is no longer the case. As I wrote ealier, "The West's deliberate rejection of its spiritual roots for emotionalism, moral relativism, and phony equality has seriously weakened it. An even greater enemy than the Islamic terrorists, I believe, is our internal weakness and decadence. (The Islamists are quite right on that score.) The West seems to have a case of the Stockholm Syndrome, when we seem to have more pity for our sworn enemies (see MSM) than we do for ourselves and our children! (Very unhappy ending coming up: How about good-bye Western Civilzation?)"

I wish I could come to a different conclusion, but, unless the West takes off its rose coloured glasses, pulls up its socks, and gets on with it, we're in very serious trouble and at real risk of losing all we've previously fought so hard for.

ET: Another dichotomy in the Islamic world's relationship with technology is that on the one hand whatever happens is "The will of Allah", but simultaneously someone should be 'blamed'.

A friend/coworker in Riyadh was advised by his managerial Saudi counterpart of an operational malfunction......the first question the Saudi asked was "What should be the punishment for this"? He was informed that 'excrement occurs', and that a search for a solution, rather than the imposition of a punishment, was in order.

Given the counterpart's mindset it's not surprising that many Islamic workers appear to believe that, if you don't do anything, you can't do anything wrong.

Similarly, it seems to me I recall stories of workers/factory managers being shot as saboteurs in the Stalinist days of the Soviet Union, simply because of equipment malfunctions.

Don't forget the Scottish Enlightenment - Reid, Hume, Smith, etc who, had it not been for them, there would not have been an American Constitution, free market capitalism, etc.

Judeo/Christian? I don't know - I think it's simply Christian. It was Christian Churches that built all of the great Universities that stand to this day in North America and most of Europe.

History = Culture = Destiny.

Those on the left are hijacking the arrow of history - inventing a false past in order to justify a future without liberty, democracy and the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for.

ET: Beautiful impassioned writing but still circular!

Western civilization is necessary to sustain a huge population, there will always be a huge population and growing, therefore there will have to be Western Civilization to sustain it.

This just sounds like your version of The End of History.

You say "that I very much doubt that 'history goes backwards'". Well, I very much doubt that history goes forwards OR backwards. To suggest that there is some force in history is just Marxism pre-empted.

However, you have great insights into Western fact-Islamic fiction and industrialism-tribalism. But I get the impression that today's Liberal Arts departments are pushing fiction only (except of course Dead White European Male Oppressor Fiction) and that our environmentalists (including the great man himself David Suzuki) are very contemptuous of industrialism, reverential towards tribalism and deep down hoping for a massive decline in the pesky human population.

That other great man, Maurice Strong, is on record for saying that we need a collapse of industrial society for the survival of the planet.

We have lost our confidence and the universities are the principal villains.

I'd love to hear how you survive in the academy with your views. Do you keep your mouth shut?

ET, thanks for your response and for your admission that one of your arguments--that Western Civilization must survive--is a circular one.

I am aware that you are an atheist, but I don't think your being an atheist precludes your ability to agree about "first things," at least in principle. Along with your strong belief "that reason and logic can provide sound moral principles" and that both they and facticity were provided by the Greeks and Romans, you also acknowledge the role that Judeo-Christianity has played in according equality to every individual in a society, a very important distinction which differentiates Western democracies from tribal-based totalitarian theocracies. I appreciate these insights and basically agree. I would add, however, that a belief in a "metaphysical agent"/God does not preclude reason, logic or facticity.

And though I also agree with your analysis of the supremacy of Western civilization's ability to organize and sustain the complexity and enormity of global populations today, I cannot be as optimistic as you in assuming that Western civilization's supremacy guarantees our survival.

I wish that this were the case, but your optimism does not take into consideration the metaphysical reality of evil in our world, a concept, admittedly, that most secular humanists and atheists have difficulty with.

When human beings choose to be inhuman--and I am seeing increasing evidence of this in Western civilization--then no amount of reason, logic, and facts are going to save us. You're correct in saying that Christianity is "a humanist religion," in the sense that the Judeo-Christian scriptures, of all holy writings, take the most realistic account of humanity: the good, the bad, and the ugly. When human beings choose to be inhuman--something Christianity calls "sin"--then all Hell can, and usually does, break loose.

And that is simply my argument. It is possible for all Hell to break loose when/if humankind in Western democracies makes a conscious decision to break free from its moral/religious moorings. If one is not able to actually enter into the religious sphere and use its arguments, it should at least be possible, if one is to be intellectually honest, to acknowledge the significance of religion in the moral basis of our civilization--and to acknowledge its centrality in establishing most, if not all, of our beneficial humanistic impulses and initiatives.

The fact that, for the most part and except for a very few, thoughtful and intelligent posters at this blog choose to ignore the extremely central and significant role that religion has played in the successful deployment of Western civilization, speaks volumes to the jeopardy we now find ourselves in.

We in the West ignore religion and ban discussion of it from public discourse at our peril. The Apocalypse is not just a fiction.

The only segment of Canadian society not aborting itself out of existence are the Muslims. So much for the culture of death:

Total fertility rate by religious denomination, Canada, 2000-2001:

Total fertility rate
Muslim 2.41
Hindu 2.00
Sikh 1.92*
Jewish 1.86*
Other Christians 1.79*
Protestant 1.65*
Catholic 1.51*
No religion 1.41
Orthodox (Christian) 1.35
Buddhist 1.34

Now that we've established that Muslim Canadians have a life-affirming culture and everyone else, including Christians, atheist/agnostics/Buddhists/etc. can reasonably be described as suicidal death cults, let's proceed from there.

A secular humanist society inevitably will abort themselves to extinction, a Muslim one will not. Which of course explains the secular humanist's implicit support of illegal and open immigration, which apparently is less of a threat to western civilization than "islamo-fascism" and socialism.

Whittle thinks humans are 100% interchangeable, though, and while un-atheist immigrants might cling to their primitive religious beliefs for a generation, inevitably we'll all become a shiny happy rainbow of productivity, secularism, and high moral conduct. Again, this contradicts the best available science.

The barbarians are already inside the gate. And it wasn't me, my generation, my politics, or the "islamo-fascists" that let them in; it was deleterious doofii like Whittle, his generation, and their hippy nonsense that did.

Irwin daisy: "Judeo/Christian? I don't know - I think it's simply Christian. It was Christian Churches that built all of the great Universities that stand to this day in North America and most of Europe."

Without Judaism, there would be no Christianity. Judaism is the root of Christianity. Jesus, after all, was a devout Jew. This is another instance of the impossibility of cutting loose from one's roots if one wants to survive and flourish. It's for this reason that J2P2 called the Jews the elder brothers and sisters in the faith of Christians.

Amen, new kid! And many thanks for boldly speaking the truth. We need much more of that in these dark times. Your wise and eloquent words are very much appreciated by me.

Irwin: Just as one cannot separate the head from the rest of the body, one cannot sever Judaism from Christianity. Jesus was a Jew: Christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish faith. The Jews are, as Pope JP II called them "our older brothers and sisters in faith."

It was the Jews who first discerned ONE GOD. This concept was passed on to both Christians and Muslims. Read The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill to learn more about the seminal influence of the Jews on all of Western Civilization.

Without the Jews, there would be no Mary, no Joseph, no Jesus, no churches. So "Judeo-Christian" it needs to be!

Bob has made a very good point, one which helps to explain the mess our "civilization" is in. The stats vis a vis Christian groups are particlarly alarming, though not surprising as increasing numbers of Christians in the West are breaking free of Scriptural norms and are tailoring Christian values to their particular and personal convenience.

When those of us under the dispensation of "Western Civilization"--because of our 'sophistication,' our 'technological progress'?--began to make the inhuman/evil decision to devalue human life, at both ends of the human-life continuum, through abortion on demand and euthanasia, we began a very fast slide towards extinction.

Western civilization has an enormous Achilles Heel and the Muslims are attacking there. They know that there are some things worth living AND DYING for, something we in the West seem to have forgotten. When I mentioned this at the dinner table of friends a few weeks ago, a very successful businessman whose wife is an elementary school teacher looked at me with horror. He couldn't imagine what I was talking about...

By far the biggest threat the Western World has is the leftern world within. The appeasers and apologists, the weak and the reality challenged, the sheep and the lemmings amongst us are the threat. Since the days of trudeau I have seen this as the threat to our way of life and social order. The war for our civilization won't be fought in the ME or anywhere else, but here, and very likely at some time in the future with more that words.

I hope the successful businessman understands what "dhimmitude" means. This word isn't even included in the new Oxford Canadian Dictionary. It damn well should be as that's right where we're headed if we don't smarten up.

I highly recommend Melanie Phillips's new book, Londonistan--she had real trouble finding a publisher--which documents the West's precipitous slide into dhimmitude. This book should particularly be read by people with their heads in the sand. (I'm using the polite reference here!)

And, Bob, I appreciated your comments. Thanks.

My comment on multiculturalism, which I am strongly against- got lost in the spam filter. It's too long to repeat, so I'll just deal with current comments.

in reply to lookout, me no dhimmi, and nemo2, yes, I admit it sounds like an 'end to history' argument. It is most certainly NOT Marxist, for I don't agree with a linear determinism and most certainly disagree with his 'the end of the state'.

My analysis is based, as I said, on energy dynamics, which is a biological analysis of energy or 'matter content' of an organism and/or system, and an analysis of how this matter content must be organized..to retain that matter.

So, a small population, which is small because the env't in which it lives can't support large populations, is organized differently than a large population. Just as a paramecium is organized in a simple manner while a large animal is organized in a more complex manner. This isn't 'historical determinism'; it's biological reality.

I agree with me no dhimmi's views of our universities! I am indeed, one of the very few, who are not postmodernist, who insist on facts and logic, one of the few who teaches critical thinking and insists on reasons and evidence in research papers - and not just on 'opinions'. Am I opposed? You bet- I haven't spoken to many of my colleagues for years. They are all part of the postmodern, relativist, feminist club. My associates are in the sciences - in physics, biology, computer science, bioengineering. And, they are almost all outside of Canada. Canadian research, which is centrally governed by our ONE research funding agency, is ruled by bilingualist postmodernists, anti-Americans.

new kid - I tend to agree with Irwin Daisy, I think it was primarily reform Christianity, with its focus on the duty and responsibility of the individual and its insistence that all humans were equal - rather than Judaism, that 'roots'
western civilization (as well as the Greek/Roman base). The universities, after all, were started about the time of the reformation. Interestingly, so were museums, which meant that we 'put the past away' and didn't keep repeating it.

I also do believe in the notion of 'evil', but of course, not a metaphysical evil, since I reject any metaphysical forces. But humans most certainly have the capacity for evil.

Bob - the Muslim population rate will decrease in 19-20 years. No, the non-Muslim are not 'suicidal death cults'. None of the three words in your phrase validly represents a population simply reproducing itself, as these groups are.

I think you should define 'secular humanism'. It, in its original and legitimate meaning, doesn't mean postmodern relativist, but a genuine open humanist, whose decisions are based on facts, reason, logic and analysis - and an awareness of 'the golden rule'.

Thanks, ET, for thoughtful comments, though you still haven't altogether sold me!

And where does the golden rule come from? Hmmm . . .

Perfectly stated, Western Canadian. This "islam-o-fascist" business is a red herring, whether intentional or not. We have seen the real enemy, and he is us.

Some have suggested that pro-Bush folks are cranking this meme out in a comically inept attempt to distract from domestic issues such as illegal immigration, abortion, an absurd legal system, breathtaking disregard for the constitution, increasing racial tensions, massive and total domestic spying, record discretionary non-war-related federal spending increases, affirmative action, "PC-chill" in academia and elsewhere, and on and on, but that's insane tinfoil hat conspiracy talk that only a commie would believe.

Mike Harris could use a little help over at this "Greatest Prime Minister We Never Had" contest..
http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/

lookout - I think that the 'golden rule' is a logical conclusions. It comes from reason and logic. It doesn't, I feel, come from religion - which I'm sure is your conclusion.

As you know, I'm an atheist, so I don't accept any metaphysical force. I consider that religions are human constructs and that the Christian religion, as reformed in the 1100 and on era, is a 'humanist' ideology in that it accepts all people as members of its society. It is not, like Islam and Judaism, tribal, which accept people primarily by hereditary links. Judaism, unlike Islam, is not an expansionist religion, it doesn't insist on 'be like us or die or be subservient'. But- again, as an atheist, I'm not a follower of religion.

bob- that's a remarkable conclusion. So, Islamic fascism doesn't exist? It's just a diversionary tactic of..guess who..the Americans. You seem to, like the Islamists, also live in a purely fictional world. I presume 9/11 didn't happen, the London, Madrid, Indonesian bombings didn't happen, Theo Van Gogh wasn't murdered, on and on. None of it happened. It's all a plot.

Judeo/Christian is a socially acceptable sound bite without anyone questioning it's meaning in context of modern civilization. Of course both Lookout and New Kid are right in terms of the pre-history of Christianity rooted in Judaism and Christ's confirmation of Mosaic law. However, what I'm simply saying is the Judeo part had little more than that to do with the establishment of the west and it's ideals. With the equality of man in Christ, there wasn't much room left for a chosen race.

Akenaton also believed in monotheism. Albeit, his was the sun disc god. Maybe the imagery was representative of something spiritual?

The problem in the west is the socio/political division between the left and the right - which has become almost violent. Meanwhile the Islamites are howling at the door ready to blow the house down. A house divided against itself and all that - which, if I'm not mistaken, Lincoln took from the Bible.

Well, well, this is quite a deep subject. New Kid and Lookout, I quite appreciate your thoughts and sentiments. I can relate. Must be a woman thing.

ET; please forgive me if I've misunderstood you or missed something, I have to admit I haven't thoroughly read each and every post. You said this to Lookout; " by the way, lookout, with your reference to the Islamic mode 'taking over the world' - my point is that this is impossible.
I admit they are certainly trying, but, pragmatically, it is impossible.

The reason is, that the Islamic ideology is both non-industrial and non-collaborative. By the latter, I mean that it is purely kin-based; it is tribe-based. It considers other peoples as 'dhimmi'. The Christian religion, after the reformation, was/is a humanist religion in that it considers all human beings as equal members of the collective population. This means that a Christian society (post reformation) can admit anyone into the society as equal members."

I am wondering if you considered the collaborative efforts of China, North Korea, Ruusia, etc. when it comes to taking over the world?

Like New Kid and Lookout, I'd like to share your optimism but I think you are undersetimating the collaborators and the resources available.

First, I appreciate the comments -- and especially the link -- thanks, Kate.

Second, I did acknowledge that there do in fact seem to be biological differences in IQ. However, these differences may amount to 15 points -- not insignificant, I agree. But here is the point: The world's most successful Arabs live in America. The world's most successful Latinos live in America. The world's most successful blacks live in America. And, when you take out the boutique, First, I appreciate the comments -- and especially the link -- thanks, Kate.

Second, I did acknowledge that there do in fact seem to be biological differences in IQ. However, these differences may amount to 15 points -- not insignificant, I agree. But here is the point: The world's most successful Arabs live in America. The world's most successful Latinos live in America. The world's most successful blacks live in America. And, when you take out the boutique, less than 30 million countries, the world's most successful whites live in America.

Now that tells me something, and what it tells me is that a simple metric like prosperity is not racially defined -- by this I mean, racially excluded. The successful and prosperous members of every race and cultural group I meet in this country have one thing in commmon, and that is attitude. That seems dramatically plain to me.

My only argument is that whatever genetic differences there are -- and I belive there are some, based upon the scientific evidence -- pale in comparison to the effect that attitude and immersion in a can-do culture has on success.

And Agitfact's summary of my argument is a perfect example of people writing wht I did not say as if I did, to then hold up to ridicule. It seems that such a tactic would be unnecessary, if the argument was as specious as he claims. The core of his argument seems to be that the left is not trying to destroy the values necessary to the success of Western Civilization. I would refer him to Horowitz's THE PROFESSORS as a starting point. Those cases are not Horowitz's opinion; they are the agendas of leading American academics IN THEIR OWN WORDS. Read what these people are saying about Western Civilization, and then ask me again if I can question their patriotism. I not only question their patriotism, I question their SANITY.

Thanks, Western Canadian: my thoughts in a nutshell. Occasionally, it's important to crack the nutshell open and expose the 'meat' within--kudos to lookout and ET for their contributions! But very succinctly put, WC.

We have seen the enemy and it is US--not THE U.S. but we, ourselves, each individual, each one of us going in his/her own way, like sheep that have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6): the "new" freedom which is actually licentiousness and enslavement.

I smelled a rat the first time I saw Trudeau pirouette with that stupid rose between his teeth. And I submit, that it was when Canadians at that time were, en masse, repudiating religion and deconstructing the real reasons for Western freedoms--which until then had always been based on the kind of equality only Christianity acknowledges because of its belief that every human being is made in the image of God/the Creator of the Universe, and not based on any inate goodness, reason, or logic in humankind--that the ball of twine (Web of Trust) began to seriously and rapidly unravel.

"Those on the left are hijacking the arrow of history - inventing a false past in order to justify a future without liberty, democracy and the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for." - Irwin Daisy at July 31, 2006 11:28 AM

Problem identified, but wrong culprits. It is not lefties who are bending the course of history on this thread, it is established SDA stalwarts.

There has been great discourse about the Judeo-Christian tradition, Magna Carta, and the Reformation, until finally Irwin Daisy mentioned the Age of Enlightenment. My cue!

Yes, our civilization incorporates part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But if the Judeo-Christian tradition were everything, we'd still be in the Dark Ages (or ET's state of fiction.)

Magna Carta was not the result of King John Lackland receiving divine inspiration, but of a bunch of rebellious barons who had him by the royal purse strings. Its further evolution also was driven by imposed political necessity, not royal magnanimity or Christian insight.

The Reformation only introduced a variant to Christian way of doing business, the Protestant. Whether the sovereign was Catholic or Protestant made little difference to the life or liberty of the subject. And we all can glory in the religious wars of our Christian tradition. (Perhaps someone would consider doing a website called "The Real Religion of Peace," similar to the existing TROP one.)

The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular. Yes, dour Scots, such as Hume, were heavy hitters, but so were frisky Frenchmen, (such as Voltaire) and even dastardly Germans (Leibnitz and co.) The upshot was that man became important as a human being in itself, and stopped being the mere subject of church and state. The Age of Reason then applied rationality to dearly-held fictions, and we were off to the races in science.

Three points to this story:

1.) Don't overplay the role of religion in getting us to our current state of civilization. We may trust in God, but respond mainly to practical necessity, and rely on big battalions just in case.

2.) Don't ignore the role of reason in getting us here and protecting us in future. Moral Rearmament may not be enough.

3.) Ask yourselves about the role of "conservatives" and "progressives" in Magna Carta, Reformation and Enlightenment, and why this history should end with current conservatism. (Personally, I think that our "right" vs. "left" mud-match has nothing to do with civilization, and everything with party politics gone mad.)

Good article, Bill. Thanks for following up with your comments.

Bill it isn't necessary to convert your 'seconds'
into metric for us Canadians. Many of us dinosaurs know imperial quite well. LOL!

ET: "A complex organism doesn't reduce to a simple organism"

Happens all the time, my friend. It's called "thermodynamics".

Thanks, Bill Whittle, for the article in the first place, lots of food for thought. Thanks, Kate, for posting it, too.

When you say, Bill, "My only argument is that whatever genetic differences there are -- and I belive there are some, based upon the scientific evidence -- pale in comparison to the effect that attitude and immersion in a can-do culture has on success," I agree.

And after agreeing, I obviously want to take a few steps back to attempt to explain why the U.S.--why the West--has been such a phenomenally successful human enterprise. It's clear to me that it hasn't been random or accidental.

Sometimes even I am at a loss for words. Thank you for this post, Kate. It has reminded me of the importance my job of home educating is and has given me new inspiration about what I want to teach my children.

Thank you Bill Whittle! And Kate! An astonishing piece. If I were just a little more paranoid, I'd think you were speaking directly to me.

There were many personal connections for me. I always wanted to fly (grew up around aviation). Instead, I discovered the motorcycle which I found to be the perfect, more practical rush, but very like flying (I have the tickets to prove it!). My first out of town ride was on the very day of Robert Kennedy's death spiral. Like you with flight, I have learned a lot about myself and life from the motorcycle: too hot in a sharp curve? Remember: 'you'll run out of nerve before you run out of tire'; 'don't look at the guard rail -- you'll hit it if you do (target fixation); look way out ahead of the curve; you go where you look, like magic.

I am -- wait for it -- 10 years older than you (1949) the exact gap you refer to in your essay. However, despite coming of age in the Woodstock era, I never bought the phony love/peace circus and have been ashamed/embarrassed by boomers -- the "worst generation" I've always thought, following immediately upon, but not surprisingly, the "best generation". Ennui from assumed prosperity, surplus? Like you, I’m waiting for the pensioning off of the last hippie who hid out in academia and government.

For me your central thesis was: the unfathomable complexity of western civilization BUT with no overarching central plan. This is what drives the leftist elites NUTS: that their plans are not needed. That is the ultimate insult. No, worse than that: that civilization SOARS because of the very absence of those central plans!

Your thesis reminded me of a famous essay by Leonard Read (founder of Foundation of Economic Education in 1946) called I, Pencil. I had provided a comment and link earlier but it disappeared. Someone above referred astutely to yours as a kind of "I, Pencil on steroids". Indeed.

For sda readers not familiar with "I, Pencil", here’s a link:

http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=316

(Trying again, with no link???)

Thank you Bill Whittle! And Kate! An astonishing piece. If I were just a little more paranoid, I'd think you were speaking directly to me.

There were many personal connections for me. I always wanted to fly (grew up around aviation). Instead, I discovered the motorcycle which I found to be the perfect, more practical rush, but very like flying (I have the tickets to prove it!). My first out of town ride was on the very day of Robert Kennedy's death spiral. Like you with flight, I have learned a lot about myself and life from the motorcycle: too hot in a sharp curve? Remember: 'you'll run out of nerve before you run out of tire'; 'don't look at the guard rail -- you'll hit it if you do (target fixation); look way out ahead of the curve; you go where you look, like magic.

I am -- wait for it -- 10 years older than you (1949) the exact gap you refer to in your essay. However, despite coming of age in the Woodstock era, I never bought the phony love/peace circus and have been ashamed/embarrassed by boomers -- the "worst generation" I've always thought, following immediately upon, but not surprisingly, the "best generation". Ennui from assumed prosperity, surplus? Like you, I’m waiting for the pensioning off of the last hippie who hid out in academia and government.

For me your central thesis was: the unfathomable complexity of western civilization BUT with no overarching central plan. This is what drives the leftist elites NUTS: that their plans are not needed. That is the ultimate insult. No, worse than that: that civilization SOARS because of the very absence of those central plans!

Your thesis reminded me of a famous essay by Leonard Read (founder of Foundation of Economic Education in 1946) called I, Pencil. I had provided a comment and link earlier but it disappeared. Someone above referred astutely to yours as a kind of "I, Pencil on steroids". Indeed.

For sda readers not familiar with I, Pencil, google I Pencil (2nd hit is Foundation of Economic Education link).

Interesting discussion. I have a couple of points to add.

First, I interpreted Whittle's cultural argument (or perhaps it's a (non)racial argument) more broadly than some. I don't think he literally meant that any given individual is equally interchangeable, ignoring innate individual aptitudes for specific tasks. I interpreted his point as quite the opposite. In a tribal society, one's role, options, and opportunities are prescribed by tradition, which ignores the idiosyncrasy of innate talents. In a modern culture individuals are free to search, find and develop whatever their "hard wired" talents and interests.

Regarding the survivability of Western Civilization, it seems that those with a more pessimistic view of future outcomes predicate their argument on continuation of the current course. ET has raised the issue of adaptability in relation to technology and industry. I would further that argument to the political sphere and beyond.

Western Civilization will survive because of political adaptable (the feature of self-governance that in my opinion makes it the most durable system of societal organization), and that sweet little feature "hard wired" into human animals called survival instinct. As events occur, opinions change, new solutions and tactics are employed.

I see things playing out one of two ways. 1) There will be an Islamic Reformation, which I think is quite possible. For the Islamic system to gain enough power and momentum to actually destroy more than a building here, and intimidate a population there, the "Caliphate" would have to re-emerge. For this to happen, Islam would have to overcome the deeply seated sectarian and tribal differences played out violently in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere within the Muslim world. This gap cannot be bridged without Islam becoming more inclusive, tolerant, and democratic, therefore losing much of it's militancy and tribalism. I also think more available access to information via the internet is creating a forum for interaction and change within the Muslim world, along with external pressures to democratize provide the required infrastructure for the Reformation process to develop and grow. In which case, the role of the political West will be to encourage the process, while continuing the war on terror.

Option 2) If Islam does not reform, or can somehow manage to homogenize AND retain it's militancy, then violence against the West will continue to grow. In this case, westerners will continue the process of realizing the nature of the threat, will adapt accordingly, and this will get very bloody. Eventually, western survival may dictate taking the gloves off and inflicting massive damage on a WWII type of scale. Hope it doesn't come to that, but if pushed to the wall, we may have to win this one the old fashioned way.

Either way, I have great faith in both our survival instinct, and our ability to adapt and respond.

Wow. A lot has happened on here since I began my own ramblings. Haven't yet read all the subsequent posts, but I hope my post is still relevant. Yeaaaa -- good to see I correctly interpreted Bill's point regarding culture's impact on individual achievement. Now, to catch up...

FYI, ET and others, who might like to listen to a fascinating interview with Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the world's leading scholars in the history of Christianity and medieval intellectual history: Stephen Jay Gould was a good friend of his, and Pelikan recounts that when Gould was asked what might be the best way of communicating with any other life forms in the universe his answer was to play over and over again Bach's Mass in B Minor in all the languages it has been sung in, and ask if they have anything equivalent to it?

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/pelikan/pelikan-personalmemoir.shtml (click on Stream for interview)

kevinb- no, thermodynamics is not applicable to a biological organism but to a physico-chemical system. A horse does not morph into a plethora of paramecium.

Cheri- N.Korea and Russia have little economic or other power. China does, in at least 10 or more years, and it is exponentially rushing into capitalism, and will, in my opinion, emerge as democratic. A massive population, engaged in personal agendas of accumulating wealth, require political power as well. That's democracy.

And agitfact - I agree (!!!) with everything you said - yes, to the role of reason and the 'age of enlightenment'...which began with the Right To Question and To Doubt (eg. Perceval and the Grail, Abelard...all 12,13th c).

As an atheist, I don't put much stock in religion, but, as an academic, the rise of the Christian religion is interesting - except for the most unfortunate period of about 800 years (the dark ages) because the church chose the Athanasian rather than Arian interpretation.

But, what is interesting about the Christian religion, is that it is a non-tribal religion. That's quite a 'first'. Both Islam and Judaism are tribal, whereas Christianity considers that you are not born into the religion, but must choose it - and - all people are equally able to choose and live in it. That's indicative of an era where the population was increasing and migrating out of tribal territories..

Tom Penn - nice post. I fully agree with your first scenario.

This has been, I think, an excellent discussion and one of the reasons why Kate's blog is so very good.

Aaaah, you can alway scount on agitfact to deny Communist/Socialist atrocities of the 20th century.

Actually agitfact is very apropos for such a revisionist! Nonetheless I will henceforth dub thee "Left Wing Zundel", or LWZ for short.

Thanks agitfact,

It only took about about 140 some odd posts by SDAers but you got it correct.

There's so much blow harding going on here with most trying to show how clever they are. All you have to do is look how posts end (never with a conclusive result but merely a fade to grey). This just shows that posters are more interested in seeing their own words on a computer screen than reaching a conclusion.

sickofdalibs...You just had to get that home schooling BS in, didn't you?

As for Bill...he's a great writer that sets the scene perfectly but a whittle off the mark with a circuitous thesis. He's been reading way too much Ayn Rand and not enough Hunter S. Thompson.

ET: "A horse does not morph into a plethora of paramecium".

It does when it dies! And that is what happens to civilizations when they fail - the enormous Roman Empire fell into many pieces, as did the Ottoman, the Soviet, and every other empire you might wish to name.

What does thermodynamics teach us? That the natural progression is from high order to disorder. It takes a lot of hard work to make things go the other way. When people start taking things for granted, that's the beginning of the slide.

And I don't know what your body is made from, but mine is most definitely a chemical system.

KevinB,

Mammal bodies are bio-electro-chemical that consume calories and give off heat.

Sonsofmonkeysandswine,

I'll be a monkey's uncle myself, but where have I denied one of the "Communist/Socialist atrocities of the 20th century"? I thought my list of casualty-causing conflicts was pretty complete between Red Revolution and wars of national liberation. What have I missed?

I will admit that I hesitate to lump Communism and socialism together. Seems to me that there was socialism before Communism, and there still is socialism after Communism, so you might wish to reconsider that lump yourself.

Cheers,

LWZ

(Shorter version of spamtrapped post from yesterday:)

I've said my thing from a scientific data point of view; I'll try another perspective. The statement in the article that really made me go "WTF???" was the following:

"In fact, I’ll bet my life on the fact that I can make astronauts and engineers out of any healthy babies of any color."

"Astronauts and engineers" is sorta like me saying I could make "university graduates and Nobel Prize winners"; a little too much wiggle room there for my liking, but no big deal.

In any case I can't imagine this statement has much support among the public at large and particularly those who have raised children. I'd suggest if one were to go to, say, an online discussion board for parents raising children and posted the following:

"Hi folks. Some male geek with a blog is of the opinion that he can take any baby and raise - presumably alone, as a single geek male father, in a society that bans child beating and forces even homeschooled children to be taught crap - to be an engineer or an astronaut. In fact, since he's willing to bet his life on it, we can infer that he is 100% certain of this and he completely discounts any possibility whatsoever that the kid could go bad, or even turn out "average". I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks."

...Whittle's point of view would not be warmly received. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

Saying one is 100% certain of success in this endeavour precludes any possibility whatsoever that said hypothetical kid could possibly turn out either bad, average, pregnant, stoned, or just different than the expected outcome of engineer/astronaut. IQ is far from the only variable at play here with a nature/nurture component.

Anyway, notwithstanding Bill's subsequent remarks his underlying assumption is indeed the very definition of a pure Tabula Rasa POV. Perhaps coincidently, perhaps not, it also serves as a handy (if scientifically invalid) justification for the Bush Administration's pro-illegal immigration policies.

It's Judeo-Christian. You have to account for the impact of the scholarly nature and familial customs of the Jewish traditions. The effects in medicine, science, music, literature, et cetera are phenomenal. Something like over 90% of the Nobel Prizes in physics have been awarded to Jews.

And Kevin, thermodynamics applies to molecules, not living organisms.

"It only took about 140 some odd posts, but you (agitfact) got it correct."

David Brown, you're the empitome of the arrogant yet bafflingly small minded left.

What correct exactly?

And are you marking the paper?

kevinB - again, a complex organism does not morph into a simple organism; a horse does not transform into a paramecium. A paramecium is not the 'many pieces' bits of a horse. It's an entirely different organism from a horse, and the two simply don't convert to each other.

The matter of a horse may disintegrate into its chemical components, but, that doesn't mean that these chemical components, on their own, transform into biological organisms. If that were the case, I could just take out my magic bowl, slush in some chemicals, mix, and come up with a new pet dog. I suggest you read up on the differences between chemical and biological realities.

And no, the natural progression is not from 'high order' to 'disorder'. You've been reading pop culture books on Chaos. The natural progression is from simple systems to complex systems.

I'm sure, david brown, that your description that most posters are simply interested in their own words, doesn't apply to you. Does it?

"The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular." agitfact at July 31

The question is: Was this change entirely for the better? Mod cons, constitutional democracy, etc. So it seems.

However, it's not quite so simple. What about 20th century secular politics... hmmm? More dead under the various secular credos than in 1000 Medieval Inquisitions. The Spanish version only accounted for several hundred executions, Stalin's box score is, by most accounts, over 8 million and counting.

However, the so-called "Enlightenment" turns out, for all its wrong turns, to have been possible only due to the centuries-long dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem.

The concept of "logos" (reason/idea) as developed by the Greeks was translated into personal and cultural understanding in Jewish (the Alexandrian Septuagint interpreters), and later, Christian thought. The centrepiece of this, arguably, is found stated in John 1:1 "en arche 'hen ho logos" (Gk. transliteration) Eng. translation: "In the beginning was Reason/ Word/ Concept".

Developing from this understanding of a priciple which is at once rational and personal is the culture which values and relates natural law with reason and revelation, spawing Western science and critical thought based upon a spiritual principle, a conceptual foundation.

The secular degeneration of "Enlightenment" ideas severed Athens from Jerusalem and led via Hegel and Marx to 1930's Berlin, 1918-1989 Communist Moscow, Mao, Pol Pot... need one say more. These 20th century examples of the divorce of faith from reason make all the cultural failures of medieval Europe pale by comparison.

Enlightenment, definitely a mixed bag. Drawing in its best expressions very much from the Christian well according to much recent fair-minded scholarship (Alister McGrath, R.J.P. Williams, et al). Seems as though the "Enlightenment" is in for a rougher ride than the "Crusades", if many recent scholars are to be heard.

"The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular." agitfact at July 31

The question is: Was this change entirely for the better? Mod cons, constitutional democracy, etc. So it seems.

However, it's not quite so simple. What about 20th century secular politics... hmmm? More dead under the various secular credos than in 1000 Medieval Inquisitions. The Spanish version only accounted for several hundred executions, Stalin's box score is, by most accounts, over 8 million and counting.

However, the so-called "Enlightenment" turns out, for all its wrong turns, to have been possible only due to the centuries-long dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem.

The concept of "logos" (reason/idea) as developed by the Greeks was translated into personal and cultural understanding in Jewish (the Alexandrian Septuagint interpreters), and later, Christian thought. The centrepiece of this, arguably, is found stated in John 1:1 "en arche 'hen ho logos" (Gk. transliteration) Eng. translation: "In the beginning was Reason/ Word/ Concept".

Developing from this understanding of a priciple which is at once rational and personal is the culture which values and relates natural law with reason and revelation, spawing Western science and critical thought based upon a spiritual principle, a conceptual foundation.

The secular degeneration of "Enlightenment" ideas severed Athens from Jerusalem and led via Hegel and Marx to 1930's Berlin, 1918-1989 Communist Moscow, Mao, Pol Pot... need one say more. These 20th century examples of the divorce of faith from reason make all the cultural failures of medieval Europe pale by comparison.

Enlightenment, definitely a mixed bag. Drawing in its best expressions very much from the Christian well according to much recent fair-minded scholarship (Alister McGrath, R.J.P. Williams, et al). Seems as though the "Enlightenment" is in for a rougher ride than the "Crusades", if many recent scholars are to be heard.

ET, I completely agree with your assessment of China's future, and I sure do hope we're right!

Vitruvius,

If you're referring to my comments, I don't deny that the Jews have made significant contributions to the benefit of all mankind. All I was saying is the 'Judeo' part of Judeo-Christianity had little to do with the philosophical foundations of modern western civilization. They of course benefited from it, as many of their inventions, including the state of Israel, stand today as a testament.

...there's an old saying out at the farm that kinda fits about militant Islamics:

"if it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down!"

Apologies for the double post. I go my "a" mixed up with my "s" ... no rude comments please.

IGNATIUS

David Brown,
Oh yeah, it's all for you, baby. You are totally the one I think of when I spoke of homeschooling. You are the wind beneath my wings. You are the meaning in my life. I even dream of you at night. Okay, now I need a shower and a package of steel wool to clean the vomit off.

And here I was, complimenting Mr. Whittle. For shame.
BTW, I found some great history curriculae. Interested?

Dear Irwin Daisy - I'm sure you mean no ill will to the Jews but I think your view is too narrow. Please read what Ignatius has said about the foundational and seminal influence of the Jews to ALL of Westerrn civilization--LONG before 90% or whatever the huge number is of Jews who've won Nobel Prizes for all kinds of things. Yes, Jews in the present day have done marvellous things. Before that, their ancestors set up the rest of us to do marvellous things. Please check out Thomas Cahill's The Gifts of the Jews, the first in his "Hinges of History" series, which explains this. I found what he had to say very convincing.

Thank you, Ignatius, for putting agitfiction straight about the glories--how about gories?--of the Enlightenment as it ran its course through the killing fields of the 20th century. Let's see if there's any response.

David Brown, your comments are ungracious and unhelpful--unintelligent too.

sickofdalibs: homeschooling? As a teacher in the public system, I salute you. Home's a very good place for your kids to be. As ET confirms, the education system in Canada has been captured by the "tolerant, diversity loving" (my words) left and is now in enemy territory.

Ignatius mentioned the divorce of faith and reason. I believe that we're seeing that everywhere in the public square today, where religion--especially Christianity--has been banned. So, at school, while we have behaviour codes up the ying yang, the behaviour--divorced from any allegiance to something greater than ME, which is what faith is all about--continues to deteriorate precipitously.

And ET, I do ascribe the golden rule to religion--not just to Judaism and Christianity. In his prohetic book, The Abolition of Man, about the descent of civilization that's playing out now in a neighbourhood near you, C. S. Lewis labels the golden rule the Tao: He said that it is found in the moral codes of ALL the world's oldest religions. And, no wonder: If we don't have empathy for our neighbours and they for us, the whole house of cards collapses.

Which brings us back to the enemy being US (not the US--thanks, new kid!). Visit almost any public schoolyard or classroom today: The lack of empathy and altruism--remember, I've been a first row observer for well over 30 years--let alone common courtesy, is astonishing by its absence. It's truly a dog eat dog world now. Completely cut off from Canada's religious and cultural roots--we get multi-culti, feminist, New Age pap instead--everyone's treading water in their own shallow swamp.

The Behaviour Codes are stated AND stated AND stated AND stated . . . ad nauseum, but everyone knows that they're rarely observed. The infractions are so frequent that administration usually turns a blind eye or turns them back to the teacher. The kids know there's never going to be a commensurate punishment, no matter how egregious their actions. e.g., like falsely accusing teachers of assault and completely getting away with it even after a late confession: scandalous! The very worst kids and their parents up the ante and administration appeases and caves. It's a vicious circle--and more and more often, literally vicious. As someone at sda pointed out recently the care and compassion are altogether feigned--because they're based on pure feel-goodism and emotionalism, nothing real. Of course, fed on this thin gruel, any kind of robust altruism or sacrifice--what's THAT?--dies a natural death.

And guess what? So does our civilization.

Like Tom and ET, I KNOW that people are resourceful and adaptable. However, re the slide into barbarism that we see all around us, especially in the youth culture--the barbarism of our Islamic enemies is a whole other threat--I haven't seen much resourcefulness. Left to the tender mercies of the lefties, who run--into the ground--just about everything these days--pace [Latin word], PMSH and the CPC!--appeasement's about all I see. What we really need is the reestablishment of real discipline. However, the Charter has us over a barrel on this one: Every consequence--when it's really needed, which is often these days, what's wrong with good, old fashioned, EFFECTIVE punishment?--appears to infringe on the miscreant's rights and entitlements. Not much room for resourcefulness here.

Tom and ET, civilzations rise and fall. What makes you so sure that's not going to happen to us? I'd love to agree with you but I honestly don't see too many hopeful signs at the moment.

Bob, you missed the point entirely -- congratulations. You claim that the reason I may or may not be able to do such a thing as make "astronauts and engineers" is because of individual differences, not racial ones. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Only now, because I argue that the prime motivator for achievement is individually based (specifically, what people are taught by their parents) and that I believe this trumps genetics by a large margin, you then claim the point is invalid because I cannot control for individuals. So, if I read you corrrectly, my argument that this is based on individualism, not race, is invalid because I have not taken into account enough variations of individualism?

Oh, and the "geek male" -- that was a nice ad hominem touch...always a sign that someone is out of ammunition. I don't want to go all Cyrano on you, but since there is so much about what I believe online, and so little about you -- is that really the best you can do? Heaven forbid you would be able to make a point without sneering, but if that would cause you some facial pain, could you not put a little more effort into the insults? It would certainly make my life more entertaining.

"Thank you, Ignatius, for putting agitfiction straight about the glories--how about gories?--of the Enlightenment as it ran its course through the killing fields of the 20th century. Let's see if there's any response." - Lookout at 06:57 PM

Hell, Lookout, someone who signs himself Ignatiua/s and knocks the Enlightenment must have been trained by Jesuits. My poor Basilian education hardly entitles me to debate with one of those (although I still have a copy of "Athens and Jerusalem" from the '60s.)

Quite possible that the Enlightenment was a "mixed bag." It was human, after all, and never pretended to divine descent or inspiration. But to make people like the man who wrote "Eternal Peace" (Kant) responsible for the 20th century horrors that happened because they were ignored, does seem to stretch things a bit. Of course, without the Enlightenment, conservatives could live happily with the Absolutism that would still be in business (having been divinely ordained, if you check your church history - Catholic or Protestant versions.)

We can quibble about details, but I haven't seen any reason yet to revise the role of the Enlightenment in the development of western civilization. I wouldn't blame the Apostles for all the evils of Christianity either, and by God, there have been enough of those.

By the way, as a historical fact, the Golden Rule was preached by Confucius some 450 years before J.C.

Thanks for the response agit, but I'm not converted.

You say, "Quite possible that the Enlightenment was a 'mixed bag.'" Now that's an understatement, if ever there was one: You might have mentioned this earlier. Quibble about details? 20 plus million deaths and you have no reason to change your opinion? Well, it's a free country . . .

Yes, I believe Confucius would be included in Lewis's Tao.

Lookout,

what's with the 20 million dead? Are you really blaming the Enlightenment for Stalin? Good luck in proving that connection. Why not blame Christianity, since the man was a seminarian before he became a socialist.

agitfact:

"But to make people like the man who wrote "Eternal Peace" (Kant) responsible for the 20th century horrors that happened because they were ignored, does seem to stretch things a bit."

Your "facts" are innactuate once again, agit. No reference was made to Kant in my post.
However, this is obviously a touchy point for the "enlightened".

On the other hand, I quite agree that how "things happened because they are ignored" does really stretch the imagination for those who claim credit for the benefits of the "Enlightenment" but are not prepared to take responsibility for the enormous toll in human death in the same period. How then is it that you and your comrades can blithely condemn the errors of the Middle Ages on Christian faith? Go figure.

There are, as a matter of fact, plenty of critics of Kant. I don't happen to be one. Actually, I don't know of many who made it through the "Critique of Pure Reason" and rather doubt that you are one, agit, for all your advocacy of "Peace" in the abstract.

As to my Jesuit training, the name Ignatius actually is derived from Ignatius of Antioch, an early Patriarch (pace PC's) of the Levant Christians i.e the troubled area where the your "enlightened" comrades of the left seem determined to prop up the Shia extremists. The area was, before it became captive to terrorists, a Christian centre of culture and learning.

Once again, your assumptions are wrong on both points: Kant wasn't and Ignatius isn't.

However, why let the facts stand in the way? It would appear that consitency, even with respect to inaccuracy, is (if not a virtue) comforting for agitprops of the "Enlightenmed" Left.

BTW Box scores for secular deaths in the "enlightened" 20th century: 40 million and counting... by comparison the Middle Ages look more and more like they reflect Kant's "eternal peace".

And Kevin, thermodynamics applies to molecules, not living organisms.

Posted by: Vitruvius at July 31, 2006 03:38 PM

ah yes vituvius, and do tell, what are living organisms made of ???? hmmm ???? is not the STRUCTURE of those groups of molecules (ie the organism) completely and forever free of said laws ????

you have some very selective views sirrah.

Thanks, Ignatius, for the useful information.

lookout,

I'll accept that my comments appear unintelligent and unhelpful. Pseudo intellectuals usually have a difficult time understanding concepts that don't fit their pre-conceived notions or formal education.

However, graciousness is not a requirement unless you're trying to make friends as well has nothing to do with facts and logic.

"As a teacher in the public system, I salute you." This is a hypocritical traitorous statement. In the business world you would loose your job for this type of behaviour. Besides as a teacher you're least in a position to make objective comments.

May I suggest your thought process has gone soft from far too many holidays.

Ignatius,

so Kant (1724-1804) had nothing to do with the Enlightenment! And he never wrote "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone," or "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment."

However, you did not make Kant individually responsible for the horrors of the 20th century, I must grant you that bit of Jesuistry. Neither did I make him solely responsible for the Enlightenment - if you recall "people like ..."

I recognize the true neo-con by the absolute denial of fact to suit the propaganda. And by the ad hominem.

"Loose" my job--as in maybe preparing for retirement?

You're a pompous fool, David. That's my objective opinion. Rather than provide reasonable objections to what you dislike, you spout unintelligent gibberish and totally unjustifiable insults. [THIS IS MY THESIS.]

[HERE BEGINS MY SERIES OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.]

I'm a crackerjack teacher and my mind's just fine, thank you. (And I have no pretensions to being a "pseudo intellectual": That's your put-down.) As the public school system's very good at turning out third rate, armchair "thinkers" like you--who can't spell homonyms either--from long experience, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

And before you use such big words as "hypocrite", perhaps you should understand their meaning. Example: I'd indeed be a hypocrite if I SUPPORTED the stunted, PC-driven, hypocritical--"The kids and literacy come first"--aims and abysmal track record of the public system. My views on the deficits of the system--that's called "critical thinking"--are straight up and not in the least "traitorous" or hypocritical.

Neither is my staying in the system: I'm one of the authentic and good things about it. (This is not arrogance: I've got a rock solid track record to back up my claim.) You want your challenged child to learn to read and write? I can do it, and have, for literally hundreds of students. (That's when the system's not hampering me, as it does these days, with ludicrous and invalid expectations, e.g., trying to teach a full literacy program while dealing with violence prone autistic students with no additional support. Do you find it "traitorous" of me to mention this or to try to change my working conditions to better serve my students and their needs? Or do you think I should just sit tight and go with the flow?)

I'd actually be "hypocritical and traitorous" if I pretended all's well in the public system, as the bureaucrats do. THAT would be a complete sell out re my students and their needs. Then I truly would be a traitor--to my ideals, my abilities, and the success of my students.

If I were writing your report, you'd receive a very low grade for logical and critical thinking. In the "Next Steps" section, I'd write something like, "In written expression, David sometimes has difficulty formulating and sustaining an argument. In order to express his ideas in a concise manner, he needs to acquire a set of specific vocabulary, which he understands. (Use of a dictionary is highly recommended.) David also needs to be clear about his thesis and present a series of logical arguments to support it: Put downs and non-sequitur inferences are invalid techniques in order to meet the standard of expression expected of a student his age."

You fully deserved that: It's a parody of your unpleasant attempts to make your unpleasant and unintelligent points. I'd like to see one post from you where the primary object is not to insult those with whom you disagree. Even if the issue's contentious, the rest of us are usually able to challenge one another in a courteous manner. I know, I know, you don't think courtesy really matters: "However, graciousness is not a requirement unless you're trying to make friends as well [, and this] has nothing to do with facts and logic." (Back to your report: "Proofreading and editing are also highly recommended.") If I want to make gracious comments to a fellow poster, I don't see what your problem is. I don't confuse it with making an argument. Pleasantries stand on their own: They constitute some of the glue which holds together our fragile civilization. Your asinine objection to my saying something nice surely derives from a moral pygmy mindset. Get over it. (Maybe you're just jealous because I don't say nice things to you. I'll be happy to if your comments ever merit such a response.)

[CONCLUSION: SEE THAT IT MATCHES MY THESIS, STATED AT THE BEGINNING.]

By all means, take on the posters at sda. But play by the rules and stop behaving like a spoiled toddler, whose preferred way of dealing with frustration is to have a tantrum. Grow up and smarten up.

----------------------------------------------

P.S. Why not set yourself a challenge? Respond to this with no put-downs. If you follow the steps I've provided, you should be able to do it. Disagree as much as you want, disagree as vociferously as you want--but civilly and reasonably. If you do that, I'll respond in kind.

Good luck!

agit,

You keep speaking of Kant, listing titles and, by the way, making ad hominem remarks (I am neither a neo-con nor a Jesuit).

I have simply responded to your overheated comments on secularism and baseless assumptions by saying that I did not raise the subject of Kant. Everyone accepts that he was an "Enlightenment" philospher.

I was merely pointing out some of the tragic outcomes of secularism (subject of this thread) which you claim is the heart, in fact the entirety, of the "Enlightenment". I am not actually sure that Kant would agree with you on that. We'll leave it to those who have actually read Kant and claim to understand him. I don't even claim to understand Hegel other than to know that many of those who promoted Nazism and other secular regimes made lengthy references to Hegel and the secular Enlightenment.

Remember your statement, Agit: "The real agent of change in western civilization was the Age of Enlightenment, and that was entirely secular."

If you deny then that the secular states which arose following the "Enlightenment": Nazi Germany, Communist China, Russia, Cambodia, Cuba etc., are responsible for the greatest brutality, evil and butchery in human history then you have redefined the term "fact", agit.

But, of course, that is what agitprop is all about: denying facts and redefining history.

ET: "And no, the natural progression is not from 'high order' to 'disorder'. You've been reading pop culture books on Chaos. The natural progression is from simple systems to complex systems."

And yet, all the great empires of the world have broken apart. Ask the people of Iraq and Lebanon how their complex civilizations have held up. Whole swathes of Africa are living lives of bare susbsistence that were measurably better in their colonial days. I don't read pop culture books on Chaos theory; I read history.

Yes, we've made some incredibly complex things, but some of those have also gone horribly wrong. The federal government for example. And people are finding that smaller and simpler is often better.

Consider Windows XP. It is one of the largest software products in existence in terms of number of lines of code. It is also full of bugs, inconsistencies, and security holes large enough to drive a small truck through.

Now consider Linux. It is hundreds of times smaller, more secure, and so rock-solid it's my bet that SDA is running on a Linux server right now. When it gets a bit easier to install for non-geeks - which it is doing every day - the home user is going to turn to it instead of shelling out $500 for Windows Vista.

So, there's two concrete examples of complex systems giving way to smaller, less complex systems. I didn't say that things *never* get more complex; check my original post. I only said that it goes the other way too.

lookout
Thank you. I love home schooling. I think you are spot on about David, also. If all teachers were like you, I would have no problem with the public education system. I had some really great teachers, but I also had some very terrible teachers. It is not a comment on the teaching profession that I home school, but on the educational system. Thank you for understanding that.
David Brown
Where do you work that you are not able to compliment the competition? It is a good thing we live in a country with free speech where people are allowed to have differing opinions; not to mention that I am not the competition, but a compatriot of lookout's. We are both interested in the best education available to children. Unfortunately, right now, I don't believe that is the government's school.

Kevin B,

"It (simple systems to complex systems) goes the other way too."

I think the Egyptian pyramids would prove that. And perhaps the Liberal Party of Canada as well.

sickofdalibs, you're most welcome! So we have many things in common: I love teaching too--when I'm left alone to do it. That's one of the joys of home schooling: A blessed absence of the constant butting in and dead ends of officialdom. I know you can get more focused teaching done in a fraction of the time it takes in the public school, especially with the multitude of class management--bad behaviour!--issues we have these days.

All the best to you and your kid(s)!

Kevin B,

Simplify and thus improve design. Correct about Windows XP and switching to Lynux.

The current car with dozens of compplex systems to support maintain and lose money on.

The Electric Vehicle, our next car, with only steering, battery, brakes and tires to service and no gas or oil to buy.

Hope Israel puts down the hez so we can enjoy our EV rather than simplifying back to the 14th century. = TG

Kate,

The Bill Whittle post is exactly what I had in mind for the "Letter from Canadian War Veteran" to follow the "Letter from Canadian Taxpayer" post. Thank you for bringing it forth. It explains the value of our veteran's sacrifices and points out why more sacrifice is required by everyone connected "by the web" to keep civilization progressing. Dirty word, "Progress" is. It wouldn't exist except for the word "Sacrifice". But those two words give birth to another: "Civilization".