The dead tree theory of civilisation

Regardless of the passing novelties of culture, falling like leaves in the autumn, there are indispensable riches that transcend even a dead civilisation or social order, to persist. The essential heirlooms of a civilisation are protected and planted again, like acorns.

The origin of the term "radical" came from the Latin word for "root". Those who were radical would hack at the root, or get to the root of the problem. They would, to use an expression favoured by Jean-Paul Marat, bring the hatchet (or ax) to their root.

Inevitable moral decay?

Far from needing to be hacked down, trees eventually die by themselves. If nothing else brings illness to the tree, its death can occur when it becomes so large that it can no longer support its own weight. Then, however majestic it may seem, it will collapse. A tree may even rot while it stands, such that its great size and apparent triumph over other trees may mean nothing.

There have been successive civilisations that were at the centre of the economic life of the world. Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the more vaguely defined "Western civilisation" of the present day, with its multiple centres in London, Washington DC, Paris and elsewhere. There is no disputing that each of them collapsed, nor can we dispute that the collapse was necessary for the continued excellence of humanity, although the modern one cannot countenance its own ultimate fate as anything similar.

Many people of a conservative persuasion believe they see things rotten about our society, things that are continuously changing for the worse. They may point to increased sexual liberty and rights that were not typical of the higher and more accomplished stages of a civilisation. It has been argued that a higher civilisation adopts puritanical moral structures and a focus on scientific and artistic accomplishments in order to impress, and that denying excessive sexual liberty assists in this because it helps to keep humanity focused on human excellence rather than primitive joy. Those of a liberal persuasion, on the other hand, welcome any increase in personal liberty, and will only laugh at the above, but their response likely isn't any newer than the views of people during other declines.

It is difficult to form a rational case in relation to the idea of the moral corruption of society, because the outcome depends on one's pre-existing values. The very process of analysing flaws in the moral character of society requires first of all adopting values without rational justification, such as the view that excellence and intellect are better than laziness and pleasure.

How to detect decadence

Decadence, the steady loss of what gave a culture its value, may manifest in worsening cultural products and art forms that are not worth saving, in contrast to the creations of what would have been considered the works of a higher civilisation in its golden age. Everything is just a passing, worthless thing. This may result in a decreased ability to identify with any kind of culture and eventually, with other people in society. Even still, we may still have powerful governments, reminiscent of empires of old, dependent on the inertia of past accomplishments, up until the moment of their failure.

The idea of decadence implies that those who succumb to it either don't recognise it or don't recognise a problem with it, maybe instead being pleased with it. The concept suggests that a society can become sick without even realising it, because its own capacity to recognise goodness or judge itself is also being corrupted, succumbing to the same cultural and intellectual sickness it cannot see.

Decadence also signifies age. If it is a real sickness, it is inescapable and everyone is somewhat infected. Where the conservative is wrong might, then, not be in his dismay at the diminishing of moral or cultural value, but in his delusions that he can do anything to reverse it. A dead tree cannot be restored to a living one, and the clock cannot be turned back on society. Only a fresh acorn, planted elsewhere, has any potential after that.

To fell the tree

It is possible to appreciate both the progressive and the conservative, to see their roles in history.

The believers in progress perform a necessary role in the life of a civilisation, allowing the adoption of new ideas, new scientific models, and new technologies, but any kind of utopia may ultimately prove impossible or harmful, and so the reactionaries also have a valid role. If indeed a civilisation collapses, those who depended on its present state are not going to be the seeds of a new tree; only conservatives could create new civilisations or establish the next outposts of progress. Think what you like of them, but they bear with them a tried and tested formula for how to construct a society and civilisation, whereas the modern liberal only bears faith in the progress of the existing model and will refuse to go back to past traditions or simplicity.

The conclusion that necessarily follows from identifying what is considered decadent is that a thing is unworthy of respect or loyalty, once it is sufficiently debased that you no longer identify with it. It follows that a decadent culture or civilisation imperils those outside of it, like a rotten tree that threatens to fall when it might be inconvenient and should therefore be felled with all urgency. Its destruction, like that of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, can eventually be justified.

Get more philosophical musings by email:

Powered by

Read More »

Can societies really become decadent and collapse?

The notion of decadence, the eventual degeneration of a society or civilisation due to its own failings, once fascinated scholars. However, such a notion is now virtually unheard of except to some conservatives.

Interest in the idea of civilisational deterioration and collapse could have diminished because the idea was offensive to believers in the creed of perpetual social progress and development. Western campuses have, for a long time, been unfriendly to any idea that could align with reactionary rhetoric, such as a theory about moral decline, so most eminent thinkers in the West will avoid the topic completely.

Those of us most likely to talk about some form of civilisational decadence or moral deterioration gripping the developed and so-called "civilised" countries, namely the West, are likely to be of the reactionary mindset. This was not always the case.

There was a Marxist-Leninist notion of decadence, although it had no social or moral meaning and was only an economic observation. This was simply the theory that the epoch of capitalism could come to the end of its life, as capitalism could exhaust itself as a model of progress and from then on, only destroy its own accomplishments through war or turn into imperialism.

Civilisational longevity

In liberal and secular humanist thought, there seems to be no heed given to the longevity of one's culture or civilisation at all. All rational discourse is focused on the welfare, happiness and rights of individuals in the here and now. There is no thought for the morrow, as everything is invested in just doing what is right today. This is miraculously subverted when the issue of human survival is brought up. As soon as scientists suggest building settlements on Mars as a long-term investment against an extinction on Earth, the modern liberal is likely to support that endeavour, apparently forgetting that it does nothing for the welfare or rights of the individual.

People of the liberal persuasion are inhibited from investing in civilisational survival as any kind of priority, because it entails a kind of collectivism that could clash with individual rights. If investing in the distant future of humanity or our civilisation is made into any kind of priority, it could result in restrictions on behaviour that are offensive to individual liberty. It could, for example, result in social pressure to reproduce, which the liberal ideology prefers to treat as being solely the concern of the individual, not of the society or species.

It could be that a civilisation with a liberal monoculture could persist indefinitely, because it might gain traction with everyone on our planet, and hence there would be no threat from inside or outside. However, against a civilisation that has a sense of its own survival and longevity, a liberal civilisation may be an inadequate competitor.

While the Chinese civilisation could have a very strong awareness of itself and its needs, a liberal civilisation in the West may simply be a swarm of wandering individuals who are increasingly disparate, self-interested, and have no thought for whether their own civilisation could or should survive to tomorrow. Invariably, there will be those who will cry out now and claim that the Western liberal civilisation must be defiantly preserved and fought for, but is that not contrary to its own thesis, placing the focus on the individual's happiness? By being synonymous with liberalism, the West is unable to cast off its liberal preferences or put the civilisation's longevity ahead of the individual.

Cultural liberalism as decadence

Perhaps the granting of inordinate liberty to people is indeed decadence, a celebration of vice, which undermines the bonds that held society together and once made it anything worth fighting for. That is certainly what those of a conservative religious mind will tell us. There will always be those of that mind, and their greater moral certitude and reliance on a proven path of tradition may be a kind of inoculation against any peril that could originate from the excessive fixation on individual liberty.

The answer as to whether our current society or civilisation is destined for collapse due to moral decay cannot be asserted by me, but such a situation, even if real, may not be as troubling as it sounds. There are enough reasons to suspect some sort of civilisational collapse could occur, but it is unlikely to happen on a truly global scale or simultaneously in multiple countries.

Despite the globalisation, the world is actually becoming too fragmented for any kind of global failure of society and civilisation, and may even be too fragmented for a shared economic collapse. Countries and regions even within the West are taking quite different courses socially (the French and British approaches to how to manage cultural diversity, or the differences between individual US states on LGBT rights and birth control, for example, are very different).

If conservative worriers about a moral collapse are right, then, to use the metaphor of the Titanic, there is still reason to think the West is large enough and divided into enough compartments to stay afloat in some form. It won't be going down, in whole, even if the worst predictions of moral decay are valid.

Read More »

The EU is cracking down, but risks cracking up

The European Union's attempt to impose a liberal monoculture on all member states risks destroying the entire EU project.

Unelected EU authorities, in this case foreign judges at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), have clashed with the parliaments of sovereign states that represent nations comprised of millions of people, threatening them with funding cuts.

Progress forced

Far from "democratic values", what the EU says it wants to impose on Poland and Hungary using funding cuts as a weapon amounts to some specific cultural changes. It is in the hope of changing their stubborn attitudes to LGBT content and immigration, that resistant countries are to undergo this forced conversion to the Euro-liberal ideology. Even if one supports this ideology and considers it to be a fulfilment of social progress, funding cuts seem like an awful way of achieving it.

The EU wants the power to ensure that the next generation in places like Poland are educated and inculcated in such as way that they will share the EU bureaucrats' cultural opinions, and will help stamp out their own local Catholic traditions and values. Without the monolithic liberal monoculture, which the Pope referred to as one-track thinking, the ideological righteousness and uniformity of a superstate can be in jeopardy.

Siege against the majority

What is happening is a basic failure of statecraft that creates significant division in even one country, let alone a confederation of multiple nation states. It is a rejection of the sovereignty of a people, which always leads to the oppression of that people. One cannot impose compliance with a set of cultural norms on a region or nation without oppression, such as as this financial siege the EU now threatens on disobedient countries.

Action by the EU is also unlikely to improve the situation for minorities the EU supposedly wants to make life easier for. They too will be hit by indiscriminate financial punishment of a country. As well as being morally problematic, financial punishment of a country due to the majority sentiment against a minority is folly from a pragmatic point of view. It may only increase acts of hostility by majority against minority, with the latter being now associated with a foreign siege against the nation, thereby having the opposite effect to what the EU hoped, even if the nation eventually yields.

Disregard for sovereignty

The utter disdain for the self-determination of nations, the very basis of democracy, being displayed by the EU is yet another manifestation of a familiar colonial arrogance. This disdain is part of the same mindset that brought Western armies to Afghanistan, only to cause more suffering and problems before falling back in retreat after twenty years of failed vision.

Many people value their national culture and identity more than any economic benefit, which drove Brexit against unheeded warnings of empty shelves and queues. Rather than give in, people in places like Poland should be prepared to endure significant hardship to resist and abandon an imperious confederation

If the Poles eventually decide they have had enough of the EU, they can always look to the seas, learn from Britain, and count on us as a trading partner. In addition, it would not take long for other countries to leave.

Read More »

"Woke" isn't a useful term, should be avoided

While originating as a positive term, "woke" could become a pejorative used by the political right. It conflates a number of different things, and isn't useful.

Woke, like the other pejorative SJW (social justice warrior) points at all kinds of things at once, many of them being entirely appropriate or essential to a good state and receiving support from all across the political spectrum in every country.

The #MeToo movement

For example, the #MeToo movement entirely fits the descriptions of "woke" and "SJW" and represents the same generational change of values, and is responsible for bringing down both Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. No one will dispute that this is a good thing.

Will anyone, even the most extreme reactionaries, step forward to defend these men against the "woke" women who stood up to them? No-one? In fact, many right-wing Republicans love the #MeToo movement because it incriminated some specific Democrats. Therefore, by their own admission and by their own definition, even members of the extreme right are "woke", at least on this issue.

Anti-racism

Anti-racist activists mix with, and are often the same people as, anti-war activists, as is the case with the many in the Green Party of the United States. Anti-racism should not even be considered left-wing and is in fact simply responsible statecraft when one's country accommodates multiple races. It is bizarre that combating racism is even considered controversial. Most countries in the world accommodate multiple races and cultures, and preventing sectarian and ethnic tension is absolutely essential to maintaining the state.

Where anti-racism backfires, however, is when it increases tension and decreases community cohesion. If any ostensibly anti-racist policy increases tension or decreases community cohesion in any way, it is potentially damaging both to workers' rights and to the stability of the state and is bad policy. This is why the issue has to be handled sensitively, as it is in the UK, unlike the US.

Cancel culture

Cancel culture is the tolerance towards another person or group using their position in a company or organisation to arbitrarily deny and suppress points of view, perhaps with pressure from riotous groups and threats. It is increasingly done in companies and academic bodies.

Of course, some ideas are too fringe to be accepted, and the internet has created false expectations that even the most absurd ideas must be taken seriously and deserve time. The fringe ideologues will invariably shout about some extraordinary "censorship" and "cancel culture" destroying civilisation, despite the fact it would be entirely impossible for them to voice their ideas prior to the internet and current platforms existing.

Cancel culture is problematic due to its arbitrary and top-down nature. All it takes is for executives at the top of an organisation to deem even a valid statement as unacceptable (for example, Facebook might deem that criticism of Facebook is unacceptable disinformation). Then, it is completely scrubbed from public view. Control of virtual environments and control of platforms can allow things to be completely denied. It can be argued that the exercise of such power is of significance to the state, and therefore mandates the state taking it over instead of leaving it to private individuals.

As an example of what can go wrong, cancel culture has the potential to eventually come into conflict with the first example of the so-called "woke" politics, the #MeToo movement. If executives who happen to be in charge of influential platforms were accused on those platforms, they would be able to silence everything against them. Any arbitrary power eventually results in arbitrary enforcement of arbitrary rules and can create a group of people exempt from all the rules they force on others.

The confusion is bad

Rather than assigning labels, positive or negative, like "woke", people should use proper descriptions of what they're talking about. A lot of polarisation is probably the result of abject confusion, with people rallying around words that mean nothing.

People opposed to cancel culture may find themselves bitterly arguing with people opposed to sexism, without realising they hold the same views. They became attached to meaningless words they found on the internet, and wanted to hurl these words around.

Read More »

Catholics, Muslims similarly oppose cultural liberalism

Although unthinkable from a historical perspective, it is likely that both Catholics and Muslims will become more politically active in Western countries and find common ground.

Inclusivity activists in the West, crusading against all forms of social exclusion or distinction everywhere, have gained more and more influence over government and academia. They are likely to collide, increasingly harshly, with all those who hold tradition dear.

It is only a matter of time before a renewed attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church begins to manifest in Western countries, this time facilitated by inclusivity-focused politics. The proponents will also implicitly demand Islam be destroyed, too, although they may try to defeat the Catholics first and dupe Muslims into helping them attack this first target.

Pope senses the problem

Pope Francis has made a number of denunciations to assert a firmer stance by the Roman Catholic Church against forces that may next seek to destroy its foundation. Calls for inclusivity at the expense of doctrine have been explicitly rejected by the Church. LGBT activists' calls have gone unheard. The Pope even reached out to explicitly condemn the EU for trying to diminish Christmas for the sake of inclusive language, showing the Church's frustration with cultural liberal campaigners and their influence.

The Pope has rejected "cancel culture", perhaps in recognition that the vindictiveness of modern-day cultural liberal reformers who topple statues is likely to result in some assault on the Church in the near future. Branding it as "one-track thinking", he stated, "any historical situation must be interpreted in accordance with a hermeneutics of that particular time." With the sleeping giant of the Roman Catholic Church arising to confront cultural liberalism, we may see an ever firmer stance being taken in many communities against it, as formerly quiet people emerge to defend their traditions.

Abrahamic religions to face massive pressure

Many ideas are central and non-negotiable in the three Arbahamic faiths. Catholics hold that men and women are distinct creations, and that there is no changing from one to another. Muslims hold a similar view at present.

There is no way to square Western cultural liberal views about inclusion with Catholic Christianity or Islam, yet Western campaigners and culture warriors have shown they will tolerate nothing encumbering their goal of inclusivity, including cultural and traditional barriers. The goal to rewrite the meaning of man and woman in the interests of inclusivity everywhere will probably mandate an attack on other languages and cultures beyond the West, because what is really intended is to change a concept itself.

Ultimately there will be attempts to rewrite Catholic and Islamic doctrine for the sake of inclusivity, causing a fundamental corruption. This will be unacceptable to both, prompting them to try to build an unmoving wall of social conservatism among voters in democratic countries to block all such change.

Huge social conservative backlash is inevitable

Muslims, while often apolitical or simply supporting the left, as is the case with the UK's Labour Party, are likely to seek out their own social conservative platforms within Western countries as soon as this controversy begins to take real shape. They are likely to find common ground with Christians, if the latter can set aside the absurdity of their islamophobia.

In countries such as the UK, Muslims may concentrate in a few alternative platforms such as the Workers Party of Britain, which espouses social conservatism alongside a number of typically left-wing positions. They will likely abandon all support for the Labour Party in time, especially if it continues to be driven by the likes of Sir Keir Starmer, who is deaf, dumb and blind to all the concerns of Muslims in the UK.

The gaffes of Labour in its failure to maintain Muslims votes were apparent when Starmer suggested a preference for India over the rights of the people of Kashmir, prompting condemnation by Muslims and frantic backpedalling by him. Muslims are unlikely to forget such betrayals or overlook the possible threat of dubious cultural liberalism to Islamic doctrine and life.

The result of all this is that a significant base is forming, not perhaps for George Galloway's idea of a socialism-infused migrant-friendly party but for a more staunch social conservative party with religious principles embedded in its core ideology. If managed properly, such a platform could not only secure the votes of all Muslims in Britain but even secure enough traditionalist Christian votes to become one of the largest parties in the UK. Of course, this is all speculative, and any number of new political forces and agendas could prevent such ties from ever forming.

What of Jews?

Of course, Judaism should be mentioned, too, although I am less informed to comment on this religion. With it being a much smaller religion with less command over any voter base, it will most likely be spared most of the turbulence caused by cultural liberalism, except in Israel itself, where orthodox Jews will face pressure from Israeli liberals.

Because ultra-orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate, cultural liberal agendas in Israel could be doomed to fail and be reversed simply due to a large number of the population being against such ideas in the future.

Read More »