The Fatherless Civilization

From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2007-10-15 14:02

American columnist Diana West recently released her book The Death of the Grown-up, where she traces the decline of Western civilization to the permanent youth rebellions of the past two generations. The decade from the first half of the 1960s to the first half of the 1970s was clearly a major watershed in Western history, with the start of non-Western mass immigration in the USA, the birth of Eurabia in Western Europe and the rise of Multiculturalism and radical Feminism.

The paradox is that the people who viciously attacked their own civilization had enjoyed uninterrupted economic growth for decades, yet embraced Marxist-inspired ideologies and decided to undermine the very society which had allowed them to live privileged lives. Maybe this isn't as strange as it seems. Karl Marx himself was aided by the wealth of Friedrich Engels, the son of a successful industrialist.

This was also the age of decolonization in Western Europe and desegregation in the USA, which created an atmosphere where Western civilization was seen as evil. Whatever the cause, we have since been stuck in a pattern of eternal opposition to our own civilization. Some of these problems may well have older roots, but they became institutionalized to an unprecedented degree during the 1960s.

According to Diana West, the organizing thesis of her book "is that the unprecedented transfer of cultural authority from adults to adolescents over the past half century or so has dire implications for the survival of the Western world." Having redirected our natural development away from adulthood and maturity in order to strike the pop-influenced pose of eternally cool youth – ever-open, non-judgmental, self-absorbed, searching for (or just plain lacking) identity – we have fostered a society marked by these same traits. In short: Westerners live in a state of perpetual adolescence, but also with a corresponding perpetual identity crisis. West thinks maturity went out of style in the rebellious 1960s, "the biggest temper tantrum in the history of the world," which flouted authority figures of any kind.

She also believes that although the most radical break with the past took place during the 60s and 70s, the roots of Western youth culture are to be found in the 1950s with the birth of rock and roll music, Elvis Presley and actors such as James Dean. Pop group The Beatles embodied this in the early 60s, but changed radically in favor of drugs and the rejection of established wisdom as they approached 1970, a shift which was reflected in the entire culture.

Personally, one of my favorite movies from the 1980s was Back to the Future. In one of the scenes, actor Michael J. Fox travels in time from 1985 to 1955. Before he leaves 1985, he hears the slogan "Re-elect Mayor....Progress is his middle name." The same slogan is repeated in 1955, only with a different name. Politics is politics in any age. Writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale have stated that they chose the year 1955 as the setting of the movie because this was the age of the birth of teen culture: This was when the teenager started to rule, and he has ruled ever since.

As West says, many things changed in the economic boom in the decades following the Second World War: "When you talk about the postwar period, the vast new affluence is a big factor in reorienting the culture to adolescent desire. You see a shift in cultural authority going to the young. Instead of kids who might take a job to be able to help with household expenses, all of a sudden that pocket money was going into the manufacture of a massive new culture. That conferred such importance to a period of adolescence that had never been there before." After generations of this celebration of youth, the adults have no confidence left: "Kids are planning expensive trips, going out unchaperoned, they are drinking, debauching, absolutely running amok, yet the parents say, 'I can't do anything about it.' Parents have abdicated responsibilities to give in to adolescent desire."

She believes that "Where womanhood stands today is deeply affected by the death of grown-up. I would say the sexualized female is part of the phenomenon I'm talking about, so I don't think they're immune to the death of the grown-up. Women are still emulating young fashion. Where sex is more available, there are no longer the same incentives building toward married life, which once was a big motivation toward the maturing process."

Is she right? Have we become a civilization of Peter Pans refusing to grow up? Have we been cut off from the past by disparaging everything old as outmoded? I know blogger Conservative Swede, who likes Friedrich Nietzsche, thinks we suffer from "slave morality," but I sometimes wonder whether we suffer from child morality rather than slave morality. However, there are other forces at work here as well.

The welfare state encourages an infantilization of society where people return to childhood by being provided for by others. This creates not just a culture obsessed with youth but with adolescent irresponsibility. Many people live in a constant state of rebellion against not just their parents but their nation, their culture and their civilization.

Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks one reason for the epidemic of self-destructiveness in Western societies is the avoidance of boredom: "For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no religious belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and the creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness."

According to him, what we are seeing now is "a society in which people demand to behave more or less as they wish, that is to say whimsically, in accordance with their kaleidoscopically changing desires, at the same time as being protected from the natural consequences of their own behaviour by agencies of the state. The result is a combination of Sodom and Gomorrah and a vast and impersonal bureaucracy of welfare."

The welfare state deprives you of the possibility of deriving self-respect from your work. This can hurt a person's self-respect, but more so for men than for women because masculine identity is closely tied to providing for others. Stripped of this, male self-respect declines and society with it. Dalrymple also worries about the end of fatherhood, and believes that the worst child abusers are governments promoting the very circumstances in which child abuse and neglect are most likely to take place: "He who promotes single parenthood is indifferent to the fate of children." Fatherhood scarcely exists, except in the merest biological sense:

"I worked in a hospital in which had it not been for the children of Indian immigrants, the illegitimacy rate of children born there would have approached one hundred per cent. It became an almost indelicate question to ask of a young person who his or her father was; to me, it was still an astounding thing to be asked, 'Do you mean my father now, at the moment?' as if it could change at any time and had in fact changed several times before."

This is because "women are to have children merely because they want them, as is their government-given right, irrespective of their ability to bring them up, or who has to pay for them, or the consequences to the children themselves. Men are to be permanently infantilised, their income being in essence pocket money for them to spend on their enjoyments, having no serious responsibilities at all (beyond paying tax). Henceforth, the state will be father to the child, and the father will be child of the state."

As Swedish writer Per Bylund explains: "Most of us were not raised by our parents at all. We were raised by the authorities in state daycare centers from the time of infancy; then pushed on to public schools, public high schools, and public universities; and later to employment in the public sector and more education via the powerful labor unions and their educational associations. The state is ever-present and is to many the only means of survival – and its welfare benefits the only possible way to gain independence."

Though Sweden is arguably an extreme case, author Melanie Phillips notices the same trends in Britain, too: "Our culture is now deep into uncharted territory. Generations of family disintegration in turn are unravelling the fundamentals of civilised human behaviour. Committed fathers are crucial to their children's emotional development. As a result of the incalculable irresponsibility of our elites, however, fathers have been seen for the past three decades as expendable and disposable. Lone parenthood stopped being a source of shame and turned instead into a woman's inalienable right. The state has provided more and more inducements to women – through child benefit, council flats and other welfare provision – to have children without committed fathers. This has produced generations of women-only households, where emotionally needy girls so often become hopelessly inadequate mothers who abuse and neglect their own children – who, in turn, perpetuate the destructive pattern. This is culturally nothing less than suicidal."

I sometimes wonder whether the modern West, and Western Europe in particular, should be dubbed the Fatherless Civilization. Fathers have been turned into a caricature and there is a striking demonization of traditional male values. Any person attempting to enforce rules and authority, a traditional male preserve, is seen as a Fascist and ridiculed, starting with God the Father. We end up with a society of vague fathers who can be replaced at the whim of the mothers at any given moment. Even the mothers have largely abdicated, leaving the upbringing of children to schools, kindergartens and television. In fashion and lifestyle, mothers imitate their daughters, not vice versa.

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled "the nanny state," but perhaps it could also be named "the husband state." Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men was to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has been "outsourced" to the state, which helps explain why women in general give disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. According to anthropologist Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into "bureaugamy," a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn't replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly.

Øystein Djupedal, Minister of Education and Research from the Socialist Left Party and responsible for Norwegian education from kindergartens via high schools to PhD level, has stated: "I think that it's simply a mistaken view of child-rearing to believe that parents are the best to raise children. 'Children need a village,' said Hillary Clinton. But we don't have that. The village of our time is the kindergarten." He later retracted this statement, saying that parents have the main responsibility for raising children, but that "kindergartens are a fantastic device for children, and it is good for children to spend time in kindergarten before [they] start school."

The problem is that some of his colleagues use the kindergarten as the blueprint for society as a whole, even for adults. In the fall of 2007, Norway's center-left government issued a warning to 140 companies that still hadn't fulfilled the state-mandated quota of 40 percent women on their boards of directors. Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem stated that companies failing to meet the quota will face involuntary dissolution, despite the fact that many are within traditionally male-oriented branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance. She called the law "historic and radical" and said it will be enforced.

Bekkemellem is thus punishing the naughty children who refuse to do as Mother State tells them to, even if these children happen to be private corporations. The state replaces the father in the sense that it provides for you financially, but it acts more like a mother in removing risks and turning society into a cozy, regulated kindergarten with ice cream and speech codes.

Blog reader Tim W. thinks women tend to be more selfish than men vis-a-vis the opposite sex: "Men show concern for women and children while women.... well, they show concern for themselves and children. I'm not saying that individual women don't show concern for husbands or brothers, but as a group (or voting bloc) they have no particular interest in men's well-being. Women's problems are always a major concern but men's problems aren't. Every political candidate is expected to address women's concerns, but a candidate even acknowledging that men might have concerns worth addressing would be ostracized." What if men lived an average of five years and eight months longer than women? Well, if that were the case, we'd never hear the end of it: "Feminists and women candidates would walk around wearing buttons with 'five years, eight months' written on them to constantly remind themselves and the world about this horrendous inequity. That this would happen, and surely it would, says something about the differing natures of male and female voters."

Bernard Chapin interviewed Dr. John Lott at Frontpage Magazine. According to Lott, "I think that women are generally more risk averse then men are and they see government as one way of providing insurance against life's vagaries. I also think that divorced women with kids particularly turn towards government for protection. Simply giving women the right to vote explained at least a third of the growth in government for about 45 years."

He thinks this "explains a lot of the government's growth in the US but also the rest of the world over the last century. When states gave women the right to vote, government spending and tax revenue, even after adjusting for inflation and population, went from not growing at all to more than doubling in ten years. As women gradually made up a greater and greater share of the electorate, the size of government kept on increasing. This continued for 45 years as a lot of older women who hadn't been used to voting when suffrage first passed were gradually replaced by younger women. After you get to the 1960s, the continued growth in government is driven by higher divorce rates. Divorce causes women with children to turn much more to government programs." The liberalization of abortion also led to more single parent families.

Diana West thinks what we saw in the counterculture of the 1960s was a leveling of all sorts of hierarchies, both of learning and of authority. From that emerged the leveling of culture and by extension Multiculturalism. She also links this trend to the nanny state:

"In considering the strong links between an increasingly paternalistic nanny state and the death of the grown-up, I found that Tocqueville (of course) had long ago made the connections. He tried to imagine under what conditions despotism could come to the United States. He came up with a vision of the nation characterized, on the one hand, by an 'innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls,' and, on the other, by the 'immense protective power' of the state. 'Banal pleasures' and 'immense state power' might have sounded downright science-fictional in the middle of the 19th century; by the start of the 21st century, it begins to sound all too familiar. Indeed, speaking of the all-powerful state, he wrote: 'It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man's life, but, on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood.' Perhaps the extent to which we, liberals and conservatives alike, have acquiesced to our state's parental authority shows how far along we, as a culture, have reached Tocqueville's state of 'perpetual childhood.'"

This problem is even worse in Western Europe, a region with more elaborate welfare states than the USA and which has lived under the American military umbrella for generations, thus further enhancing the tendency for adolescent behavior.

The question, which was indirectly raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s in his book Democracy in America, is this: If democracy of universal suffrage means that everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's, will this sooner or later turn into a society where everybody's choices are also as good as everybody else's, which leads to cultural relativism? Tocqueville wrote at a time when only men had the vote. Will universal suffrage also lead to a situation where women vote themselves into possession of men's finances while reducing their authority and creating powerful state regulation of everything?

I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that the current situation isn't sustainable. The absence of fatherhood has created a society full of social pathologies, and the lack of male self-confidence has made us easy prey for our enemies. If the West is to survive, we need to reassert a healthy dose of male authority. In order to do so we need to roll back the welfare state. Perhaps we need to roll back some of the excesses of Western Feminism, too.

adolescence has been artifically extended

Submitted by kristof on Tue, 2007-11-06 20:57.

" transfer of cultural authority from adults to adolescents"

there's a book that proposes solutions to this problem of adulescence, one being to abolish compulsory schooling as strange as it may sound at first.

Psychologist Robert Epstein in his book "The Case against Adolescence" explains why socialization at schools isn't good socialization and how the artificial extension of adolescence is a bad for thing for our societies. While it doesn't deal with the same issues as Diane West's book this one will appeal to anyone whatever their political ideas are because it's a non-political book, the author isn't a "right winger" or a "left winger"

Let's abolish high school
by Robert Epstein

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/ross/archives/037351.html

Over the past century or so, we have, through a growing set of restrictions, artificially extended childhood by perhaps a decade or more, and we have also completely isolated young people from adults, severing the “child-adult continuum” that has existed throughout history.

an interview with Epstein about homeschooling

http://www.crosswalk.com/homeschool/11551480/print/

 

Further dotting

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2007-10-18 16:24.

@ Kapitein A

 

There appears to be a measure of agreement between us, but major differences remain.

 

1) My comment about "the corrupting impact of the state" was in response to your assertion that a revival of 'Christianity' in the West was unlikely without support of the state.   The state is essentially about (coercive) power, and is therefore not a good foundation for any genuine "moral revival" (whether it is called "Christian" or not).   In this context I fail to see the relevance of your reference to "money", which is another form of power, and yes also corrupting.  Morality has to do with intentions and MUST be based on free will. 

2) I am equally baffled by your irrelevant attack on neo-conservatives.  What do you mean by their "vitriolic attacks on the state"?   Western "neo-conservatism" is essentially about a robust foreign policy, i.e. about using the power of the state (particularly the military) to respond to manifest attacks on western civilisation and on the US in particular.  What is distinctive about neoconservatism?  It is their naive view of the perfectability of mankind and the faulty presumption of the universality of democratic aspirations.  By contrast, 'traditional' conservatives (and I include myself among them) are much more sceptical about human nature in general and about the nature of non-western civilizations in particular.  Traditional conservatives are well aware of the need, and at times the possibility, of removing totalitarian obstacles by force, but will in general be much more sceptical and less interventionist than neo-conservatives.   But, as you should know, the latter are mostly former 'lefties' (who have had some kind of epiphany) and hence their 'enthusiasm'.   And, needless to say, neo-conservatives are also very different from 'libertarians' who want an absolutely minimal state.   So your attack is incomprehensible.  Neoconservatives are strong believers in the use of state power. 

3)  My comment about some disaster or geopolitical phenomenon being the typical determining factor had to do with "moral revival" in the West.  You respond with purported examples of internal factors determining the current "islamic revival".   I am sorry, but I do not consider the contemporary so-called "islamic revival" as a "moral revival".  In fact, in many ways it could be considered almost the opposite, in part because its underlying theme is precisely the use of 'state power' to force conformism.   Once again, whatever the theology of the matter, islamic and christian values differ substantially as PRACTISED by their respective followers.  The core of Christian morality is individual salvation and freedom of conscience, i.e. morality must be based on free will and canNOT be based on coercion.  

4) I must insist that you read more carefully.  My statement about humanity's short attention span and venality does NOT assume that "original sin" exists.  It assumes or implies that short attention span and venality exist.  I trust you do not need illustrations of that!

5) It is regrettable that you continue to refuse to make a proper distinction between race and culture.  Western civilisation was historically centered in Europe, and later in North America and 'down under' as well.  That explains the predominance of 'whiteness' among its peoples.  But civilisation is essentially about prevailing values, it is about 'thoughts and deeds', not about skin color (which is incidental).   Your continued 'flirtation' with "skinheads, cannon fodder...." does no service to your professed 'cause'.  On the contrary it is a cause for shame and it undermines your cause (and mine) of 'cultural self-determination'.  

6)  Contrary to what you say, "symbols" can never become more important than "what they represent".  Symbols are merely physical representations/manifestations of a more profound spiritual reality (or aspiration). 

Conclusion:  While we seem to agree on the importance of cultural self-determination, your comments on "the state" suggest that we may not fully agree on the ultimate primacy of individual self-determination.    And we definitely differ on the nature and the normative centrality of morality in human life.    

In Reply to MarcFrans RE Dotting the I's Part II

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2007-10-18 05:42.

MarcFrans: The point I made was that freedom OF religion should not mean banishment of 'religion' (as opposed to 'church') from the public sphere. Religious concepts and traditions have as much 'right' to consideration in the public sphere as any others (be they 'originating' in media, footbal clubs [sic], political movements, Hollywood, Al Gore, or whatever).

 

I agree. Christianity and Whiteness seem to be marginalized and treated disparagingly in the contemporary popular and academic discourse, even though Christianity is integral to Western civilization, which in effect is White civilization.

 

MarcFrans: Indeed, "humanity" will survive on instinct alone. But, 'civilised societies' do not.

 

Survival comes first, civilization a close second. Given the chaotic melee of race, ethnicity, class, religion and geopolitical mastery that will soon befall us, civilization will have to wait. Perhaps it is fortunate that skinheads are so eager to "see action" - we can make use of them as cannon fodder retaking our cities.

 

MarcFrans: ...the root cause resided usually in loss of 'values'...

 

...or the reinforcement of destructive values e.g. the Seym's liberum veto.

 

MarcFrans: Conflation of "religion and its practice" is inevitable.

 

Indeed. Which is why symbols become more important than that which they represent e.g. veils, grandiose cathedrals, banners, etc.

 

MarcFrans: In all modesty I would suggest that my formulation (to which you responded there) was more rooted in the factual historical observation of "liberal democracy and economic progress", whereas yours is more speculative and general in nature.

 

Mine delved more into the egalitarian branch of the Enlightenment. However, Communist perspectives (note that Jews comprised a disproportionately large section of the Marxist-Leninist leadership) on Christianity aside, socialism is as much Christian as liberalism.

 

MarcFrans: I trust that we can agree that PVDH's latest citation is "een dooddoener" and of no practical value in dealing with the problems around us.

 

Indeed. It has little use other than to derail discussion and debate.

survival

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2007-10-18 10:14.

Survival comes first, civilization a close second. Given the chaotic melee of race, ethnicity, class, religion and geopolitical mastery that will soon befall us, civilization will have to wait. Perhaps it is fortunate that skinheads are so eager to "see action" - we can make use of them as cannon fodder retaking our cities.

This certainly is a "dooddoener" but then literally. It’s a non-veiled call for a new “kristallnacht” (not against Jews, but against Muslims) with the skinheads as Sturm Abteilung, to be disposed of after the “retaking” of our cities. Kapitein andre, is an erudite intelligent person which makes him and his ideas much more dangerous then the rest of the extremist bunch around here. On the other hand, he seems so full of himself; he probably doesn’t feel any need to come down of his throne, and actually do something. Let’s hope it stays that way.

In Reply to MarcFrans RE Dotting the I's Part I

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2007-10-18 05:36.

MarcFrans: I think there have been periods of moral revival in the past in western civilisation...

 

Agreed. The Reformations aside, the only Christian revivals in recent history have occurred in the United States. This is not surprising given that those Christians who settled and founded the United States were largely members of denominations of the Radical Reformations.

 

MarcFrans: The latter, if anything, has usually been an albatros of corrupting impact.

 

So is money, according to John Locke, get over it. Neo-Conservative's vitriolic attacks on the state are no different to my mind to Neo-Marxists' ones on the private sector.

 

MarcFrans: I think that the determining factor has typically been some major disaster or geopolitical phenomenon...

 

It would seem so, however, the Christian revivals in Europe did not arise from such events, nor did the American ones. Indeed, the Reformation directly led to conflicts throughout the 16th Century and the deluge of the 17th Century. Moreover, the Islamic revival occurred as a result of the formation of OPEC and the Iranian Revolution as opposed to the Suez Crisis or wars with Israel. It could be that revivals are the result of internal problems rather than external forces.

 

MarcFrans: The next such disaster is quite likely around the corner, because of humanity's short attention span and venality (what 'christians' call "original sin").

 

This assumes that original sin in fact exists. Humanity does not have an attention span, and although the human intellect is capable of building upon prior experience, human emotions remain the same.

 

MarcFrans: Indeed that was a central achievement of the European Enlightenment..."

 

I would counter that it was de facto achieved and to a degree de jure long before.

no fathers

Submitted by dimitrik on Wed, 2007-10-17 15:05.

Clearly, being a father is incompatible with gender equality. I wonder what appeared first, the egg or the hen, the belief in equality or the absence of fathers. Most women would eagerly give up their equality for a good man, if such a man walks in. Unfortunately, men do not grow up themselves, somebody must bring them up. In all societies except the liberal one, boys must pass the initiation ritual to become men. Such a ritual is performed in the company of mature men. Therefore, to get more men it is necessary to have some men. I do believe that there are some men around, but our society is so hostile to men that they need to hide. I think they will multiply sometime.

Maybe the lack of men in the West was caused by World wars, and the power was temporarily captured by feminists. In those wars men fought not as much other men, as some evil witchy technologies designed to kill men, such as bombs and tanks. Witches seem to have won that war, but men will recover.

of all times

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Wed, 2007-10-17 12:58.

G. K. Chesterton:

 

 

"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong;

and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him.

The practical form it takes is this:

that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom,

the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be...

equally stupid."

 

In Reply to MarcFrans

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2007-10-17 06:59.

MarcFrans: ...anybody who would subscribe to the opinion that the burning of witches during the Middle Ages in Europe was "the worst crime in history", obviously knows little about European history and even less about history elsewhere in the world.  But, it is the umpteenth manifestation of the sort of infantile self-hatred that permeates western naive-leftism today.

 

Agreed. However, I have never encountered this attitude, although I have heard feminists - and modern witches - claim figures of up to 15,000,000 women slain over some 500 years.

 

MarcFrans: Atheling 's call for "a return to christianity" is obviously a call for a kind of moral revival, not a political program.

 

Assuming that the appeal in question is not a hollow one, a revival of Christianity among atheists, agnostics and nominal Christians seems impossible at present without support from the state. Given that morality itself is debated, criticized, questioned and dissected endlessly in Western society, could the West fervently return to values that have been largely severed from their essence and that are upheld purely by convention?

 

MarcFrans: Separation of church and state does not mean freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom OF religion.

 

Incorrect. Separation of the ecclesiastical and political spheres was a concept that pre-dated the tolerance of a multi-faith society, and one that was limited to Catholic Christendom. Moreover, it was intended to prevent the Papacy and its officials from interfering in the temporal affairs of state and the possibility of a Caesaro-Papist theocracy, which was in effect in Byzantium.

 

MarcFrans: Societies to survive have to perpetuate 'values'.

 

Not necessarily. Humanity is quite capable of surviving on instinct alone. But is Christianity not concerned more with an individual's afterlife than temporal issues such as nations, states and civilisations?

 

MarcFrans: Atheling correctly recognizes that historically values have been preserved through religion.

 

In part. However, I should think you capable of critiquing any post of mine without the aid of Atheling.

 

MarcFrans: ...the Kapitein interprets the word "christianity" as a cult or institution of worship...

 

Not only do you mistake my perspective on Christianity - understandable as you do not know it - you conflate religion and its practice.

 

MarcFrans: The historical record is very clear: liberal democracy and economic 'progress' (freedom from subsistance economy for the masses) came out of the 'christian west'. It does not mean that christianity is a prerequisite for freedom and wealth elsewhere in the world, far from it. But it does suggest that non-christian parts of the world would do well to adopt some of the values that made the economic and cultural rise of the christian west possible. And the smart ones know it.

 

I would argue that the impact of Greco-Roman thought and Germanic customs (particularly those relating to democracy and the individual), cannot be discounted, and that in fact Western intellectual traditions are a fusion of pagan and Christian values. However, I fully agree that the Christian element was as crucial as the other and that this is lost on many Westerners. Socialists appear to have little knowledge of history before Marx and attribute to him values that were articulated by Rousseau and other egalitarians, whose blends of Christian and pagan values were no less Christian than those of Locke, Hobbes, Hume, etc.

What happened to judaism?

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2007-10-18 11:36.

I would argue that the impact of Greco-Roman thought and Germanic customs (particularly those relating to democracy and the individual), cannot be discounted, and that in fact Western intellectual traditions are a fusion of pagan and Christian values. However, I fully agree that the Christian element was as crucial as the other and that this is lost on many Westerners.

There is clearly a great obsession within extreme right circles to attribute a high degree of importance to Christianity and Judaism in scientific progress and liberal economics. (White culture according to Kapitein Andre. I doubt the Ethiopians would consider themselves as white, and Arabs on the contrary would consider themselves as non-white but let’s disregard these little details.) They see a lot of “historic evidence” for this. The political motivation is clear: Showing the superiority of Christianity and Judaism over Islam. People as Fjordman are so obsessed with this topic that everything that doesn’t fit within the framework like the Islamic Golden Age, the inquisition, the repression from the Vatican against scientists, the Chinese, Indian and Mongol sometimes astonishing contributions to science, etc. are denied or minimized.

Kapitein Andre however doesn’t seem to have the need to include Judaism.

On a pure theoretical stance I would agree:

The seemingly undisputable link between Christianity and Judaism as two legs of the same body in this theory keeps amazing me. In light of the long list of ever returning pogroms of Christians against Jews, it’s seems at the least curious. Even as religion, Christianity is much closer to Islam then to Judaism. It’s strange how the change of allies (caused by the enemy of my enemy is my friend) also seems to change the preceding history.

But coming from Kapitein Andre, I think other less academic reasons are the cause of this omission...

Dotting the i's

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-10-17 17:01.

@ Kapitein A

Thank you for substantive comments. I will mainly address those issues on which you have expressed disagreement in your last posting. On other points there appears to be significant agreement.

1) I think there have been periods of moral revival in the past in western civilisation, but certainly not due to "support from the state". The latter, if anything, has usually been an albatros of corrupting impact. No, I think that the determining factor has typically been some major disaster or geopolitical phenomenon (like WW 2 for instance). The next such disaster is quite likely around the corner, because of humanity's short attention span and venality (what 'christians' call "original sin").

2) There is NO disagreement between us on the need for separation of 'church' and state. Indeed that was a central achievement of the European Enlightenment, and an achievement that has NOT yet been reached in major parts of the nonwestern world (e.g. China, the islamic world, etc...). 'Separation of dogmatic ideology and state' is as much needed as separation of church and state.
The point I made was that freedom OF religion should not mean banishment of 'religion' (as opposed to 'church') from the public sphere. Religious concepts and traditions have as much 'right' to consideration in the public sphere as any others (be they 'originating' in media, footbal clubs, political movements, Hollywood, Al Gore, or whatever). Attempts to banish religious concepts and traditions behind the ruse of "separation of church and state" are typically a perversion of 'democratic' jurisprudence, and it is usually a perversion rooted in very short-sighted ideology.

3) Indeed, "humanity" will survive on instinct alone. But, 'civilised societies' do not. Many have perished in history, and the root cause resided usually in loss of 'values' (which undermined the willingness to defend oneself and one's values). I think it was the French scientist Pascal who said something to the effect that 'the first rule or law of morality is to think clearly', which amounts to the same thing.

4) It is not a matter of "capability", but I do appreciate any intellectual assistance from Atheling, or anyone else for that matter.

5) Conflation of "religion and its practice" is inevitable. I doubt that I do it anymore or any less than you or anyone else.

6) I broadly agree with your last long paragraph, which I think was well-written. In all modesty I would suggest that my formulation (to which you responded there) was more rooted in the factual historical observation of "liberal democracy and economic progress", whereas yours is more speculative and general in nature.

7) I trust that we can agree that PVDH's latest citation is "een dooddoener" and of no practical value in dealing with the problems around us.

Witches

Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2007-10-16 17:09.

I am surprised the Kapitein commented on 'Dimitrik's posting.  The latter is either (1) largely nonsensical, or (2) wickedly satirical.   It is hard to tell the difference.  In any case, anybody who would subscribe to the opinion that the burning of witches during the Middle Ages in Europe was "the worst crime in history", obviously knows little about European history and even less about history elsewhere in the world.  But, it is the umpteenth manifestation of the sort of infantile self-hatred that permeates western naive-leftism today. 

Atheling 's call for "a return to christianity" is obviously a call for a kind of moral revival, not a political program.  Yet the Kapitein interpreted it that way, which illustrates the cultural gap between Europe and America today.   Separation of church and state does not mean freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom OF religion.   Societies to survive have to perpetuate 'values'.   Atheling correctly recognizes that historically values have been preserved through religion.  Whereas the Kapitein interprets the word "christianity" as a cult or institution of worship, Atheling (probably) uses the term here as a set of values rooted in a particular history, i.e. the one of the 'christian' west. 

Hellspenquin disputes that "self-restraint" is a christian value.  That puts him on the same road of perverse self-hatred as Dimitrik.  Obviously self-restraint is not an exclusively christian value, for it can be found in other religious traditions as well.  But one should not confuse the failures of particular christian individuals or societies in the past with what a religion teaches.  In any case, it would be interesting to learn what examples of actual "succesfull" non-christian societies that Hellspenquin has in mind.  I fear that his personal dislike, based on a selective misperception of christianity, interferes with his ability to make factual empirical (and historical) observations.    The historical record is very clear:  liberal democracy and economic 'progress' (freedom from subsistance economy for the masses) came out of the 'christian west'.  It does not mean that christianity is a prerequisite for freedom and wealth elsewhere in the world, far from it.  But it does suggest that non-christian parts of the world would do well to adopt some of the values that made the economic and cultural rise of the christian west possible.  And the smart ones know it.    

 

In Response

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2007-10-16 07:39.

I am astounded that anyone has felt that this essay merits a response! It is not even a pseudo-academic work; rather it is merely an unstructured and ill-informed rant, rife with the regurgitation of arguments and pundit quotes that I have come to expect from Fjordman. It is a shame, considering that I found his pieces on foreign criminality in Sweden quite illuminating.

 

Dimitrik: And the worst crime in history, according to our moral code, was burning of a few thousand witches by Inquisition during Middle ages. Every attempt of people to take power in their hands is dismissed as being disustrous for economy and peace.

 

Only some 40,000. Moreover, there were numerous protests from all social groups, including the clergy and aristocracy. Alas, it appears that the seizure of property was the motivating force behind most accusations of witchcraft. Furthermore, it is believed that aside from mental illness providing cause for one to be considered 'possessed,' ergot poisoning was rampant throughout Western Germany and Burgundy, where the majority of these and incidences of witchcraft occurred. However, as far as I know the Holocaust still ranks as the "worst crime in history," even though it is superseded numerically by the democide and ethnic cleansing committed by Stalin and Mao's regimes.

 

The remainder of the responses include solutions such as a "return" to Christianity or "enlightened" authoritarianism. The former involves the fusion of church and state and the latter is inherently un-Christian

@Kapitein Andre

Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2007-10-16 16:11.

"The remainder of the responses include solutions such as a "return" to Christianity or "enlightened" authoritarianism. The former involves the fusion of church and state and the latter is inherently un-Christian"

Then you don't understand Christianity or the founding principles of the USA. I'm talking about personal self restraint which has nothing to do with government authority. The Founding Fathers had this in mind when they formed the USA.

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:257, Papers 12:15

It is in this spirit that a society can be self ruled with small government. When a Christian truly practices his faith, he "exercises" that moral sense and applies it to his everyday life. The Founding Fathers recognized this and they saw that freedom only is possible when the person practices Christian self restraint and virtue.

society of witches

Submitted by dimitrik on Tue, 2007-10-16 06:12.

Our society is ruled by magicians and witches. We obtain wealth not from our labor but from some economic miracle, The Invisible Hand of the Market, which simple people don't understand and aren't supposed to understand. We get protected not by our brave men but by some nuclear and technological magic. Even our lifes originate from some medical magic. And the worst crime in history, according to our moral code, was burning of a few thousand witches by Inquisition during Middle ages. Every attempt of people to take power in their hands is dismissed as being disustrous for economy and peace.

However, the real source of this wealth is selling out the credit and resources earned by previous generations. We sold family values, then souvereignity and, finally, started selling territory, and got for that temporary economic growth. But that cannot last forever, credit and resources are coming to the end. Terrible magic power of nuclear weapons is useless against terrorists and guerilla fighters. Our witches are loosing the sources of their power and becoming more and more wicked.

@sonomaca

Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2007-10-16 05:39.

"Clearly, a return to some sort of enlightened authoritarian rule is a possible solution.  The key question as regards this route is, how does one preserve an enlightenment society without destroying it (tyranny) in the process?"

It's called self restraint.  And only a Christian society can succeed.

"And only a Christian

Submitted by hellspenguin on Tue, 2007-10-16 07:27.

"And only a Christian society can succeed."

Hardly and quite arrogant. There are other ways, not just the -overrated- Christian way. Looking at history I'd say self restraint is not really a Christian virtue.

@hellspenguin

Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2007-10-16 16:13.

Then you don't know history or Christianity.

Why don't you first acquaint yourself with its principles? I doubt you know anything about it.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried". - GK Chesterton

Dietzschnist

Submitted by Conservative Swede on Tue, 2007-10-16 01:17.

To say that you like Nietzsche is like saying that you like to go to the dentist.

I highly appreciate the artistic skills, however.

What you describe here however is exactly the result of slave morality. Inversion of values, and a morality centered around evil, with good only having secondary ontological status. "Slave morality" does not suggest that you are a slave, it's just a reference to its historical origin.

Logical conclusion

Submitted by sonomaca on Mon, 2007-10-15 20:23.

The process described above cannot continue indefinitely.  Ultimately some challenge to state power, whether external or internal, will overwhelm the weakened society and state.  This could be Islam or some other anti-democratic force.

Interesting that the conservative attempts to defend democracy, free speech, and other "enlightenment" institutions may be futile.  Why?  Because the enlightenment may be a self-limiting phenomenon for the reasons described by Fjordman. 

So, what is a conservative to do?  Clearly, a return to some sort of enlightened authoritarian rule is a possible solution.  The key question as regards this route is, how does one preserve an enlightenment society without destroying it (tyranny) in the process?

O my people, your guides lead you astray

Submitted by FLLegal on Mon, 2007-10-15 15:15.

The above article reminds me of this verse in Isaiah:

ISA 3:12 Youths oppress my people,
women rule over them.
O my people, your guides lead you astray;
they turn you from the path.