Sunday, February 24, 2019

The Politically Correct Demise of Western Civilization

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted on this blog, mainly because of the depressing state of the media and the predictability of its reporting. Kudos to President Trump for outing this Cerberus of the Swamp. I’m truly amazed at this man’s fortitude. A lesser individual would have succumbed to this unrelenting attack machine. This president has certitude and moxy. President Andrew Jackson would’ve been proud.

Another disturbing revelation is the Democratic party’s unwillingness to protect our borders and the American people from a third-world invasion. These so-called representatives absolutely despise the citizens of this country. It’s as if they are cheering on the demise of the greatest nation known to mankind. This is no longer a perception but a fact and many Americans are sensing the collapse of Western civilization.

Image result for why the west rules for now

I, for one, have devoted a lot of time reading books and watching documentaries on past civilizations. We all know about the fall of the Roman Empire, but there was a civilization that actually ruled this once agrarian town. The first four kings that ruled Rome were Etruscans. The Etruscans had a deep-seated belief that their success would last a thousand years and no further. Sure enough, almost to the date, they were invaded by Gauls, later to be absorbed by Rome. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems as though the United States is following the footsteps of the Etruscans and we have a political party cheering on our demise.

So what is the endgame of these libtards? What are they expecting to accomplish with this no-border policy? I came across a used book that somewhat answers this conundrum. Ian Morris is a British archaeologist and historian at Stanford University. His book is entitled, Why the West Rules - For Now. His scholarship is impressive, however, you get a sense while reading his book that political correctness encroached upon his style. He seems to be looking over his shoulder. As a matter of fact, he references the great academic purge that occured in the 80’s and 90’s. Here is an excerpt:

To some evolutionists, their critics were morally bankrupt relativists; to some critics, evolutionists were stooges of American imperialism. Through the 1980’s and ‘90s anthropologists fought it out in hiring, tenure, and graduate admissions committees, ruining careers and polarizing scholarship. Anthropology departments on America’s most famous campuses degenerated into something resembling bad marriages, until, broken down by years of mutual recriminations, the couples started leading separate lives. “We no longer [even] call each other names,” one prominent anthropologist lamented in 1984. In the extreme case - at Stanford, my own university - the anthropologists divorced in 1998, formally splitting into the Department of Anthropological Sciences, which liked evolution, and the Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology, which did not. Each did its own hiring and firing and admitted and trained its own students; members of one group had no need to acknowledge members of the other. They even gave rise to a new verb, to “stanfordize” a department.

You get a sense that Professor Morris is in shotgun marriage with his scholarship and the milieu of today’s academia. For instance, he demonstrates throughout the course of his book that the fall of ancient civilizations are due to the “Horsemen of the Apocalypse”: climate change, famine, state failure and migration. Professor Morris even admits that climate change was beyond human control; yet, in a later chapter, he describes attending a seminar at Stanford and lo and behold he subscribes to this man-made global warming nonsense, even though he aptly demonstrated climate change and its effect on civilizations prior to the Industrial Revolution. Go figure.

Another bugaboo that I have with his political correctness is this notion that Islam saved Western civilization and advanced science. Ibn Warraq refutes this nonsense in his book, Defending the West. Here is an excerpt:

Science and philosophy flourished on Musalman soil during the first half of the Middle Ages; but it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam. Not a Musalman philosopher or scholar escaped persecution. During the period just specified persecution is less powerful than instinct or free inquiry, and the rationalist tradition is kept alive, then intolerance and fanaticism win the day. It is true that the Christian Church also cast great difficulties in the way of science in the Middle Ages; but she did not strangle it outright, as did the Musalman theology. To give Islam the credit of Averroes and so many other illustrious thinkers, who passed half their lives in prison, in forced hiding, in disgrace, whose books were burned and whose writings almost suppressed by theological authority, is as if one were to ascribe to the Inquistion the discoveries of Galileo, and a whole scientific development which it was not able to prevent.

One of the premises in Professor Morris’ book, as I understand it, is that Western civilization is not based on any particular cultural, philosophical, or religious underpinnings. He sees it as nothing more than geography. He stated that the beginnings of Western civilization began in ancient Mesopotamia and spread from there. Now that was an eye opener. He even declared Islam, at one point and time, was the core of Western civilization. That I have a serious issue with. Sure, Islam invaded and occupied parts of Europe, but that doesn’t make this alien and subversive ideology Western. What I began to notice in his book was a determination to obfuscate real differences between peoples and cultures. This is exactly what the globalists objective is in order to obtain a borderless world order.

Professor Morris’ concludes that in order to avoid the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, we must embrace a “Singularity” by deferring sovereignty to global institutions and thereby advance world-wide social development. This theme is in concert with his theory that Western success is due primarily to geography and that culture and freewill are less than ancillary, or to be more specific “wild cards.”

I have no doubt that globalists and the open-borders crowd subscribe to this ideology. If this “Singularity” ever happens, then we’ll most definitely succumb to a new Dark Age; one where no one can escape a small band of elitist overlords and their minions in media and academia.