I don't wish to discuss the tenets of Idi Amin's domestic, economic or foreign policy. I'm interested to spur a discussion about the iconoclastic nature of his reign and that of other international rulers who, through deed and written & spoken word have shaken (or tried to shake) the foundations of Western Civilization (i.e. Western values and concepts).

Western Civilization, which, aside from a few (relativley minor) Turkic and Mongol incursions, had remained virtually untouched by other peoples and empires. It has a post-Ghengis Khan Mongol empire to thank for subduing the Ottomans in the 13th century (If I remember correctly) and also subduing the empires of Persia and parts of the Far East. This left Western Europe virgin and able to flourish and later dominate and colonise the rest of the world.

This would make the dominant civilization of the world, Western Civilization, which is the only value and moral system many parts have ever known, less than 800 years old.

This has created a metaphysical vacuum, where only starting in the last couple hundred years has the origins of mans psychology and philosophy been objectivley and reasonably studied. What this break-down of human consciousness has taught the upper-echelons of the intellectual community (specifically German speaking) is that values and morals are simply not inherent, and that relativism is the only definite empirical principal that can be applied to a new generation. This idea was expanded upon by early Soviet philosophers who theorized that people were not born elitist or materialistic, they were made that way. This idea was also brought up by Nietzsche and later National Socialist Germany; but Nietzsche and the Nazis believed that while the defective and degenerate ideas and practices of man were learned, mankind is aristocratic.

While this natural aristocracy was the original sperm-in-the-egg for Western Civilization (the decaying Roman way of life had been smashed by the German barbarians whos Wotanist religion taught natural aristocracy and whom later established the dutchies and kingdoms of medival Europe), the history of Rome can be seen as a historical timeline of how the future of Western Civilization was to deteriorate (as it is today). The origin of this problem in my opinion is the poisoning of the aristocracy after the fall of Rome in medival Europe. The Roman aristocracy was gradually more decadent as the generations passed on, but it was the introduction of Christianity combined with the generation-to-generation inheretance of nobility (noble blood) that signed Western Civilizations death warrant before it had even flourished. Christianity destroyed the Wotanistic realism of aristocracy and replaced it with a simple ideological and moral contentness for the mass population, and supported the noble-blood psuedo-aristocracy caste system of Europe.

This caste carried over everywhere Europeans went, but it is most important in the United States today. It's the Rockafellars, Kennedys, Kerrys and Bush's of New England who are the modern day Western nobles. Through their blood they inherent the extreme wealth and power of their mother and fathers generation, and they are the sole heirs to the political institutions and positions of wealth and power- no different than the lines of Romanovs and Stuarts.

Since the next 50 to 100 years will see the complete eradication of Western Civilization, I would like to know if the rule of Idi Amin is simply a taste of whats coming.

The iconoclasts who broke with the Catholic Church and destroyed the symbols and icons of decadence were symbolic themselves. Anton Szandor LeVay made a lot of money and power and fame by inverting Christianity entirely into the 'Church of Satan'. His philosophy of hedonism instead of sacrifice and virtues of sins rather than pennance in mockery of the church and the idea that by inverting an idea or institution you liberate yourself from its influence and power is a powerfully surreal means to destroy cultural and political institutions (LeVay is by no means the most successful or important, but he is a very good and concise example of the point I'm trying to make).

Idi Amin inverted Western customs and ideals many, many times during his reign. Here is an excerpt from an article on his exploits that I also have put in my signiture:

He declared that Hitler had been right to kill six million Jews. Having already called Julius Nyerere, then the president of Tanzania, a coward, an old woman and a prostitute, he announced that he loved Mr. Nyerere and "would have married him if he had been a woman." He called Kenneth Kaunda, then the president of Zambia, an "imperialist puppet and bootlicker" and Henry A. Kissinger "a murderer and a spy." He said he expected Queen Elizabeth to send him " her 25-year-old knickers" in celebration of the silver anniversary of her coronation.
In other comments he offered to become king of Scotland and lead his Celtic subjects to independence from Britain. He forced white residents of Kampala to carry him on a throne and kneel before him as photographers captured the moment for the world to see.

By inverting the Holocaust faith, inverting UN-style diplomatic channels, inverting Western ideals of the proper way to speak to and treat an elderly woman (elderly British loyalty at that), etc etc etc. are all very powerfully surreal and psychological tactics that could bring about the destruction of Western Civilization.

If leaders of other Third World nations were to speak and act in a similar manner, and leave their government in power for at least 2 generations and enforce their counter-Western culture (by having a judiciary and law system completely differnt from the West, by engaging in cultural practices completely different from any ever experienced in Europe, inverted diplomatic relationships, etc) on the people of said third world nation to the point where the inhabitants forget about the Western influence completely and never expose future generations to it, Western Civilization will cease to exist. Abroad this is already happening. Islam is the strongest opponent to Western Civilization at the moment (the Muslim world has already inverted Western concepts of justice, morals, treatment of women, politics, art, etc etc etc) and is trying to impose its value and ideological system on other parts of the world (again). Behind Islam are the Sikhs, extremist Hindus, etc of southern Asia and behind them the Far Eastern customs and practices and behind them the African tribes. But they are all starting to come together and meld into a formula to eradicate Western Civilization. They all have Western imperialism and colonialism in their past which they are starting to wipe clean in an efficient manner (Haiti for example was created by the French, but even though it is a Western creation it has almost rid itself of Western influence).

If these cultures, values and ideologies of non-Westerners continue to resurge into the phoenix of rage they seem to be, the world will collectivley experience a 'transvaluation of all values' and Western Civilization will be through its decline and completley faded.

Do any of you have any input on this theory? I've been thinking about it for awhile and since I'm well caffinated I finally wrote it all out. This is my prediction of how the West will finally fall.

Mobutu would kick Amin's ass. He even had his own spaceprogram.

I also left out two other points to this theory.

1) The effect of post-WWII immigration and inversion of half-values of Western Civilization. The immigration of non-Whites into Europe, America, etc will carry out the death sentance on the West by bringing the international transvaluation of values to its heart.

I also say 'half-values' of Western civilization because while institutional racism and some practises (such as sexism, Christian domination of secular government and education, etc) are old symptoms of Western Civilization the underlying values, morals and culture remained intact. Even after the 60s baby boomer generation and wave of political correctness Western Civilization is still alive, though 'sicker' than ever.

Which leads me to left-out point #2:

The resurgance of cultural identity and nationalism (both racial and geographical) is nothing but a 'last hoorah' effort that is 'too little too late'. Though millions of Whites around the West are still conservative in terms of how things should be in regards to race, politics, the nation-state, etc it is my prediction that they will never act in a full out revolutionary way. The efforts of anti-immigration parties in Europe and the anti-Jewish/anti-Zionist/racial science education centres of the US are for naught. The best analogy of the situation I can think of is getting in the car with a piss - drunk and letting them drive, but before you take off you say 'I bet you we are going to crash' and when the car does crash and in the moment before you die you utter 'I told you so'. Westerners knew what would happen as it happened (the segregationists knew integration would lead to a decadent America and they protested, but overall let it happen anyway). This is how these conservatives and nationalists are acting today; they know what is going to happen and they are trying to 'protest' rather than 'act' and it is happening.

You are associating a certain set of values with Western Civilisation and positing the reversal of those values as being anti-Western. This is not really a break with these values, however, as the new identity would only be able to constitute itself in relation to the values it negates.It also ignores the breaks that have occurred over Western history (e.g., the Late Middle Ages/Reformation, The Enlightenment, the 1960s). Truly deconstructive politics would reverse such values only as a means to end, to destroy the binary oppositions through which experience is filtered through, to allow new paradigms to emerge. And speaking of paradigms, there have been several such paradigms across Western history which differ in many important respects. The society of the spectacle is quite far from the society of inalienable human rights. I would argue that each age, so to speak, has its own central metaphor which lies at the core of its own unique cosmology (or world-picture). This privileged metaphor (e.g., God's creation, nature, humanity) gives rise to the epistemological system. By structuring the possibilities of knowledge, this privileged metaphor implies certain ethical orientations as opposed to others which are realised in the political stuggles of any given age.

This 'inversion' of the values of Western Civilisation is largely 1.) a reaction of World Jewry to the so-called Holocaust of the 1940s. The aim here is to 'fight anti-Semitism' by dissolving the boundries between the culture of Westerners and aliens. This new agenda also finds support 2.) from elite gentile capitalists who seek to deconstruct European national and racial identities because they no longer provide markets sufficient to swallow up excess production. See Mike's post from Chomsky's book about the link between capitalism and anti-racism as it succinctly deals with this issue.

I notice you also make mention of the revival of other cultural identities. You seem to be missing out though on just why this has come about, all of a sudden at that. Creating niche identities and fetish cultures creates newer and expanding markets for highly saturated late capitalist societies. You are also thoroughly mistaken in positing this change as a fundamental shift in values when, in reality, it is a transient, temporary, and reactionary break between the modern era and the postmodern era which has yet to emerge. It is the last gasp of an exhausted age collapsing into entropy. Most late capitalist societies are so decadent at this point that they can no longer reproduce themelves. The immigration of large unassimilable minorities is not any transvaluation of values, but a desperate attempt to shore up a declining system, which is economically unsustainable because of the aging crisis. Within the next fifty years or so, this system will implode and so will its consequental values.

You are associating a certain set of values with Western Civilisation and positing the reversal of those values as being anti-Western.

I am saying the reversal of these Western values as a revolutionary action to spite and destroy Western influence and power is anti-Western.

This is not really a break with these values, however, as the new identity would only be able to constitute itself in relation to the values it negates.

True, but the passing of no more than 2 generations after such a revolutionary protest of the West and a resurgance of pre-Western customs, culture and identity would wipe Western Civilization away like sand in the desert during a storm. The Islamic world is a great example of this. The British and French colonized the middle-east and imposed Western values, technology and weltanchaang/way of life onto the Arabs (albeit in a slight fashion as opposed to the colonization of Southern Asia and South America). Starting with the end of WWII the Arabs have dismembered themselves from the West, spited the Wests way of life in several ways and today has returned to its pre-colonial form of Islamic law and engaged in Arabic cultural revival (in varying degrees depending on the country) that is also reminiscent of but not dependant on the influence of Europeans during the Crusades (which gave birth to sixth column jihadist Islamic fundamentalism). They've made a culture out of the influence the West had on them yet have erased the Western influence. This is what will happen to the rest of the third world and non-White parts of the world eventually IMO.

It also ignores the breaks that have occurred over Western history (e.g., the Late Middle Ages/Reformation, The Enlightenment, the 1960s).

I've addressed this in a reply to my initial post. I will expand if you'd like.

Truly deconstructive politics would reverse such values only as a means to end, to destroy the binary oppositions through which experience is filtered through, to allow new paradigms to emerge.

This is what I was trying to get at though it wasn't articulated as detailed as you put it.

And speaking of paradigms, there have been several such paradigms across Western history which differ in many important respects. The society of the spectacle is quite far from the society of inalienable human rights. I would argue that each age, so to speak, has its own central metaphor which lies at the core of its own unique cosmology (or world-picture). This privileged metaphor (e.g., God's creation, nature, humanity) gives rise to the epistemological system. By structuring the possibilities of knowledge, this privileged metaphor implies certain ethical orientations as opposed to others which are realised in the political stuggles of any given age.

Interesting point. But if I'm reading you right this would imply that, in a Jungian or Hindu sense, all living things (or at least all of humanity, all races) are part of an eternal zeitgeist and consciousness collectivley. While there are certainly schisms throughout Western history (the 60s, refromation, enlightenment, as you mentioned) I think they are only superficial. The core principals of Western Civilization on average have to do with customs and habits that are common to the West that were spread to other regions of the world and imposed. Maybe customs (ways of human interaction/ways of doing things, kinetic dialogue you could call it) is what defines the West as well as the Far East, Southern Asia, etc. Even if all people and/or living things are bound by an eternal bond of consciousness, the development of humanity and life as diverse and spread out and thus isolated entities accounts for definitions of the West and other cultures. What do you think of that?

This 'inversion' of the values of Western Civilisation is largely 1.) a reaction of World Jewry to the so-called Holocaust of the 1940s. The aim here is to 'fight anti-Semitism' by dissolving the boundries between the culture of Westerners and aliens.

I think the factors leading up to the 'holocaust' are more important than the NS regime of Germany and its consequences today. The materialism, economic exploitation and poisoned psuedo-aristocracy of the West which had in a historically relevant way already rose and fell during the Roman empire had repeated itself with the Christian conversion of the barbarian destroyers-of-rome who had established the future would-become nations of Western Europe. This led to the revolt of the peasant class through bourgoisie constitutionalism and later Bolshevism and culminated in the German attempt at reviving a true aristocracy in response to the two millenia of Western decadence which had been brought to the centre of world affairs by the bourgoisie and peasant manifestations of constitutionalism and bolshevism. The outcome of this conflict decided the fate of the West in many ways, as it was the only attempt (as far as I can see) of any nation, culture or people to use the Greek-revival/renaissance/enlightenment/transcendenalism/existentialism/darwinism (i.e. any and all real 'progress' of Western history) to bear the child of a better future, and Germany failed.

This new agenda also finds support 2.) from elite gentile capitalists who seek to deconstruct European national and racial identities because they no longer provide markets sufficient to swallow up excess production. See Mike's post from Chomsky's book about the link between capitalism and anti-racism as it succinctly deals with this issue.

Valid but it still is nothing more than a wound as a result of two millenia of historical events. The capitalist exploitation of anti-racism is a result of centuries business practices of exploitation that began under the Romans who turned to labor from the East and Africa to the imperalists after the age of exploration who usurped the labor of tribes in undeveloped peoples across the globe. The capitalists haven't changed, only the values of acceptability. The racial ideas of the time for the 17th century imperialists kept the non-Whites in their home nations working and the slaves in Europe segregated. Those racial values don't exist anymore and the capitalists are simply applying their practice to the acceptable market- which is everyone due to political correctness and hyperhumanism. The balance between capitalism and anti-racism is only logical when you look at and account for it's history among Westerners, which would make it a symptom rather than a cause of our situation.

I notice you also make mention of the revival of other cultural identities. You seem to be missing out though on just why this has come about, all of a sudden at that. Creating niche identities and fetish cultures creates newer and expanding markets for highly saturated late capitalist societies.

I'm reffering to the cultural revivals among third world nations. They don't have the history of ingrained capitalism or money to be bled dry by a fad. The Western capitalists make their money through things like food, water and oil (or oil refining if the nation has raw deposits). The resurgence of pre-colonial Arab culture is not a result of capitalist exploitation, nor is the resurgence of Pakistani/Indian nationalism over Kashmir. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to deteriorate back into it's pre-colonial tribal state before Catholocism was introduced.

You are also thoroughly mistaken in positing this change as a fundamental shift in values when, in reality, it is a transient, temporary, and reactionary break between the modern era and the postmodern era which has yet to emerge.

Do you believe the West will be able to subdue indegenous culture and values across the globe again? The birthrates are plummeting, our own will to survive has been subdued; how can the West regain its dominance ever again?

It is the last gasp of an exhausted age collapsing into entropy. Most late capitalist societies are so decadent at this point that they can no longer reproduce themelves. The immigration of large unassimilable minorities is not any transvaluation of values, but a desperate attempt to shore up a declining system, which is economically unsustainable because of the aging crisis.

Yep. But the unassimiable majorities in Western nations by 2100 (at the latest) will change the values and culture of Western Europe, US, etc. The immigration itself is not the transvaluation of values, it is the fact that these people who come from nations where the cultural and racial rebirth is occuring (specifically Islamic nations) will bring with them these values and ideals and as a result of their numbers within Western nations will alter the nations' existance.

Within the next fifty years or so, this system will implode and so will its consequental values.

I agree.

>>>I am saying the reversal of these Western values as a revolutionary action to spite and destroy Western influence and power is anti-Western.

I wouldn't call the current reversal of Western values going on as being a revolutionary action. A revolutionary break with this set of values would not use them as a reactionary starting point, but would instead spring from within. What is going on today is precisely what Nietzsche meant by the noxious phenomenon of ressentiment, that being, the hatred certain populations hold against their betters (as was the case with Christianity or today with the Jews in the aftermath of 'The Holocaust') who go about trying to subvert their values in order to tear them down. This psychological condition is purely destructive and finds its own identity solely in negation of its sense of inferiority and insecurity. These people do not tear down for they can create anything. They tear down for the sole sake of tearing down, iconoclasm for iconclasm's sake. This mentality of hatred is savage, immature, and primitive.

>>>True, but the passing of no more than 2 generations after such a revolutionary protest of the West and a resurgance of pre-Western customs, culture and identity would wipe Western Civilization away like sand in the desert during a storm.

The pre-Western cultures have not re-emerged at all. Instead, what has in fact happened, is that those who hated the West and its people (for whatever reason) critique the West on the basis of its own Christian values. The West is evil because it oppresses women. The West is evil because of slavery and racism. The West is evil because of colonialism and so on. There is nothing pre-Western about any of this. No premodern Ugandan monarch would have had whites carry him around simply because they are whites. The sole rationale for this is a psychological need to assauge one's own sense of inferiority.

>>>The Islamic world is a great example of this.

I disagree. Take Palestinian nationalism for example. Nationalism is a Western importation into Islam that had not existed before. The Islamic community, in the premodern era, was the umma. The same can be said of the Ba'athists. Their secularism and Arab socialism is likewise foreign to the Islamic world.

>>>The British and French colonized the middle-east and imposed Western values, technology and weltanchaang/way of life onto the Arabs (albeit in a slight fashion as opposed to the colonization of Southern Asia and South America).

And the Islamists embrace all of this. Take the 9/11 attacks for example. The Islamists used modern Western technology against the West for their own ends. They dream of returning to a 'glorious past' but do so in an entirely modern way. Take their rants against the 'Crusaders' for example. In the Middle Ages, the Crusaders were called 'Franks' and were seen as a mere nuisance. The Franks were just another group of infidels attacking Islam. It was not until the 19th century that the Islamic world reflected upon the Crusades to any extent.

>>> Starting with the end of WWII the Arabs have dismembered themselves from the West, spited the Wests way of life in several ways and today has returned to its pre-colonial form of Islamic law and engaged in Arabic cultural revival (in varying degrees depending on the country) that is also reminiscent of but not dependant on the influence of Europeans during the Crusades (which gave birth to sixth column jihadist Islamic fundamentalism).

I can't say I agree with this either. The Islamists glorify the great Caliphate of the past simply out of hatred for the West. The Umayyads were so decadent that they make the Saudi royal family of today look like pious saints. At the time, as Bernard Lewis has shown, the Islamic world was notorious for paying little attention to Europe. All the way up until the 19th century, the Islamic world was pretty much entirely ignorant of what was going on in the non-Islamic world. It simply did not occur to them that what was going on in Europe was of much importance, worthy of reflection. Just the opposite is the case today. The Islamist movement today finds its identity in attempting to negate Western values. This sort of mentality is entirely foreign to their own past and it comes not from Islamic scholars, but radicals like al-Sadr and bin Laden who have no formal theological training. The current Islamist movement is more accurately described by what is referred to in sociology as 'modernisation'. This powerful sense of inferiority and resentment against the West springs from the spread of literacy in the Islamic world, as was the case in Europe during the Reformation.

>>>They've made a culture out of the influence the West had on them yet have erased the Western influence. This is what will happen to the rest of the third world and non-White parts of the world eventually IMO.

I disagree with this. On the contrary, they have fully embraced the West and its values (Ataturk in Turkey or Saddam in Iraq), which is the source of their resentment against the West, ironically. Their powerful sense of resentment which has resulted in radicalism is directly being caused by the spread of literacy in a society that was previously illiterate. So they really haven't returned to the past at all, but only return to the past insomuch as they find in the glories of previous eras a psychological remedy for their own powerful sense of inferiority.

>>>I've addressed this in a reply to my initial post. I will expand if you'd like.

There has never been an ahistorical common set of Western values. Instead, these values have changed quite dramatically across Western history precisely because different cosmologies (of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Early Modern Era, Modernity) have eroded. For example, in the Early Modern Era of the 17th century, everything was seen in terms of 'nature'. Locke and Hobbes constantly make reference to nature (e.g., the 'Law of Nature'). In the Renaissance, the world was seen as being sort of like a book written by God and everything else followed from this worldview. The world was understood in terms of how God had written this book which was to be discovered. In modernity, humanity becomes for the first time in world history the privileged metaphor of the West (which Foucault called 'the birth of man'). Humanity replaces God as the fundamental idol. The human sciences make their first appearance here. Ethically, secular humanism becomes the dominant philosophy which is political expressed and stamped upon everything (e.g., rights of man, United Nations, anti-discrimination laws and so on).

>>>This is what I was trying to get at though it wasn't articulated as detailed as you put it.

The point I am trying to make here is that ressentiment should not be confused with revolutionary politics.

>>>Interesting point. But if I'm reading you right this would imply that, in a Jungian or Hindu sense, all living things (or at least all of humanity, all races) are part of an eternal zeitgeist and consciousness collectivley.

Not really. My point is actually precisely that these ages are discontinuous with each other since they are each determined by a privileged metaphor which structures everything else (epistemology, ethics, politics, art and so on). They are all localised, particular, and specific. This thinking in terms of humanity and universals is the product of a certain epistemological orientation of a certain culture in a particular point in its history. Just several centuries ago, this type of mentality would have been unthinkable. Take the Greeks for example. It would not have occurred to the post-Socratic Greeks that the world was a changing and dynamic place. For the Greeks, the world was part of a rationally ordered, unchanging, and eternal natural order. Everything had its essence, which constituted its nature, and was part of this unchanging natural order. The heathen societies of Northern Europe had an entirely different view. People were at the mercy of the Gods. The world was seen as chaotic. The central privileged metaphor here was natural fertility which gives rise to warrior societies. The Jews saw the world an entirely different light since they took the spoken word of God as their central metaphor. For the Jews, the universe was thought to be rationally ordered, like the Greeks, but it was also constantly changing, as it was, for them, spoken into existence by a speaker who is always faithful to his word. The world was seen as intelligible, but since it is constantly changing, the only basis of knowledge is faith. This view was also inherited by Christianity (e.g., "I believe because it is absurd.")

>>>While there are certainly schisms throughout Western history (the 60s, refromation, enlightenment, as you mentioned) I think they are only superficial.

I disagree with this. For example, in the Early Modern Era, it was often considered humane to burn a heretic at the stake. It was actually seen as a Christian act of love, because since this world was thought to be merely a transitory one, what mattered (above everything) was saving the soul of the individual from the corruption of the flesh. Burning heretics at the stake was seen as a way of saving them from eternal damnation.

In our own era, this would be unthinkable, because we assume (well 'rational people'), a priori, that there is no other world except this one, that there is no evidence of any other world that science can establish. The 'apparent world' becomes the 'real world'. What's more, for us, humanity has inate value, although we interpret this quite differently than it was seen in the past by medieval Christians. Humanity has inate value not because humans were created in the image of God, but because Humanity has taken God's place and the world is interpreted in terms of its revelance to humanity-as-idol. Genocide is wrong because it is a 'crime against humanity'. Sin against humanity is more accurate, but that is besides the point. Racism is wrong because it is a heresy that elevates race over humanity. It is commonly accepted that there are fundamental rights of man, yet no one really knows why. Our sciences are the 'human sciences'. Progress is now seen as the improvement of humanity's material conditions, not as a progress towards the Second Coming. There are some continuities, but these eras are fundamentally discontinuous.

>>>The core principals of Western Civilization on average have to do with customs and habits that are common to the West that were spread to other regions of the world and imposed.

Yet these other parts of the world are not rejecting these customs and habits at all, but mixing them with their own indigenous cultures in a syncretic process.

>>> Maybe customs (ways of human interaction/ways of doing things, kinetic dialogue you could call it) is what defines the West as well as the Far East, Southern Asia, etc. Even if all people and/or living things are bound by an eternal bond of consciousness, the development of humanity and life as diverse and spread out and thus isolated entities accounts for definitions of the West and other cultures. What do you think of that?

I think that it is impossible for Westerners to interpret the world around them, themselves, and their own past outside of a historically situated linguistic framework imparted to them by their ancestors. This conceptual framework structures and determines how they interpret experience, historical and contemporary. To critique this tradition on the basis of this tradition is not revolutionary, but self-refuting. In the case of non-Westerners, it is merely ressentiment.

>>>I think the factors leading up to the 'holocaust' are more important than the NS regime of Germany and its consequences today.

I can't say I agree with this, as this 'lets tear down Western Civilisation' attitude is a very recent phenomenon, one that only began to emerge as a political movement in the aftermath of the Second World War. Prior to the Second World War, such attitudes would have simply been laughed at as the theories or cranks or lunatics. This disgusting self-hatred was been reified by the discursive means of production only in the last several decades, to further the political agenda I described above.

>>>The materialism, economic exploitation and poisoned psuedo-aristocracy of the West which had in a historically relevant way already rose and fell during the Roman empire had repeated itself with the Christian conversion of the barbarian destroyers-of-rome who had established the future would-become nations of Western Europe.

1.) The barbarians never destroyed the Roman Empire. The boundry between 'Romans' and 'barbarians' simply withered away into irrelevency as a new culture arose along the limes.
2.) The Roman Empire in the West declined primarily because of economic and administrative reasons, which is one of the major reasons why the capital was relocated to the more prosperous East prior to the 5th century.
3.) The much fabled decadence of the Romans is by far typical of Republic and Early Empire than of pious Late Antiquity.
4.) Nationalism is not perennial. Nations only began to take shape in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. Throughout the Middle Ages, the 'world' of Western Europeans was the 'Christian Commonwealth'.
5.) I don't see how the Roman World is continuous with our own present civilisation which took shape in the Early Middle Ages.

>>>This led to the revolt of the peasant class through bourgoisie constitutionalism

I am not sure what you are talking about here either, as constitutionalism is nothing but a means of protecting the interests and property rights of the bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy before them from the demands of the peasantry and urban proletariat.

>>>and later Bolshevism and culminated in the German attempt at reviving a true aristocracy in response to the two millenia of Western decadence which had been brought to the centre of world affairs by the bourgoisie and peasant manifestations of constitutionalism and bolshevism.

I don't see this two millenia of Western decadence, actually. In the space of two millenia, Western Civilisation arose from nothing and made the entire world its object. The Germans were not out to overthrow Western Civilisation, but to save it from Jewish subversion which they felt to be a corrupting influence. Bolshevism in Russia was a movement primarily of minority ethnic groups and disgruntled urban workers against a gentile aristocracy they hated (e.g., the pogroms of the late 19th century).

>>>The outcome of this conflict decided the fate of the West in many ways, as it was the only attempt (as far as I can see) of any nation, culture or people to use the Greek-revival/renaissance/enlightenment/transcendenalism/existentialism/darwinism (i.e. any and all real 'progress' of Western history) to bear the child of a better future, and Germany failed.

I can't say that I agree with this, in that I would locate the origins of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Darwinism more so in Medieval Christianity as opposed to Greco-Roman philosophy. The fundamental conflict is actually that between two irreconcilable traditions, the remnants of Classical Antiquity (e.g, essentialism) incorporated into the Western tradition and that of Christianity.

>>>Valid but it still is nothing more than a wound as a result of two millenia of historical events.

I am not seeing how this is the culmination of two millenia of history, as the problems we face now were mostly absent in previous ages. In the Middle Ages, few Northern Europeans were even aware of the existence of Negroes.

>>>The capitalist exploitation of anti-racism is a result of centuries business practices of exploitation that began under the Romans who turned to labor from the East and Africa to the imperalists after the age of exploration who usurped the labor of tribes in undeveloped peoples across the globe.

I don't see how this follows either. Imperialism had existed long before the Romans, for instance, the Persian Empire of the Greeks of the Hellenistic Era. Likewise, capitalism is radically different from all economic systems to have ever preceded it, as capitalism is a dynamic process by which wealth is created as opposed to being extracted, exploited, or stolen from labour or raw materials. Also, it has only been rather recently that capitalism, an economic system with no parallel in the ancient world, became anti-racist.

>>>The capitalists haven't changed, only the values of acceptability.

Globalisation is an unprecedented phenomenon.

>>>The racial ideas of the time for the 17th century imperialists kept the non-Whites in their home nations working and the slaves in Europe segregated.

If that is the case, why were slave brought to live amongst white populations in the colonies?

>>>Those racial values don't exist anymore and the capitalists are simply applying their practice to the acceptable market- which is everyone due to political correctness and hyperhumanism.

For capitalism, individuals are merely consumers. Entire peoples are nothing more than markets and factors of production. The only utility these identities have are whether or not they further the expansion of markets and profit. I would also disagree with the notion that racial values don't exist anymore. That is ridiculous, as nonwhites bask in and glorify in their own racial identities, a phenomenon that if anything has been supported by most major multinational corporations. Political correctness is something altogether different. It is a critique of Western values inspired by Jewish hatred of the West and its culture.

>>>The balance between capitalism and anti-racism is only logical when you look at and account for it's history among Westerners, which would make it a symptom rather than a cause of our situation.

Once again, it has only been rather recently that this situation has developed. It is a contemporary problem, not one that was dealt with on an everyday basis in the past, where the utility of our own identity was never questioned or held to be a horrible crime which goes by the name 'racism' (which did not even exist until the early 20th century).

>>>I'm reffering to the cultural revivals among third world nations.

A plurality of cultures created a plurality of markets and higher rates of consumption.

>>>They don't have the history of ingrained capitalism or money to be bled dry by a fad.

On the contrary, these societies are questioning their own identities precisely because they are so influenced by the West. They do so in an entirely modern way as well, which is not any return to any past at all.

>>>The Western capitalists make their money through things like food, water and oil (or oil refining if the nation has raw deposits).

Western capitalists generate wealth not by exploiting something that exists previously, but by creating it in dynamic productive processes.

>>>The resurgence of pre-colonial Arab culture is not a result of capitalist exploitation, nor is the resurgence of Pakistani/Indian nationalism over Kashmir.

There has been no pre-colonial resergence of Arab culture. Instead, there has been simply a disorienting effect in the Islamic world caused by the spread of literacy and longer life spans.

>>>Sub-Saharan Africa continues to deteriorate back into it's pre-colonial tribal state before Catholocism was introduced.

It has not really deteriorated backwards at all, but instead, has merely fully accepted modernity and all of its consequents, namely, the destructive effects of technology. Many of these African thugs have destroyed their nations not because they have rejected the West, but because they use Western technology and arms to prop up their cruel regimes.

>>>Do you believe the West will be able to subdue indegenous culture and values across the globe again?

I believe that the West will decline but what will come after the West will by no means be a return to pre-Western forms of social organisation. The ghost of the West will haunt the entire world in a new Dark Age, just as the Classical Civilisation lingered on into our own times as Catholicism.

>>>The birthrates are plummeting, our own will to survive has been subdued; how can the West regain its dominance ever again?

There are only two outcomes that I forsee:

1.) The decline continues unabated and nothing is done to stop it. The West will simply be overrun by aliens yet these aliens will not establish their own cultures upon Europe's ruins, but will be significantly influenced by Europe's past, as was the case in the Middle Ages. Whatever emerges will be post-Western as opposed to pre-Western.

2.) The aging crisis turns into a crushing economic depression (as it inevitably will) that will happen, believe it or not, rather quickly. The decline of the U.S., Japan, and Western Europe will be mutually reinforcing. Sometime during this, in the next fifty years, the current cosmology (or worldview) collapses. Marginalized groups seize upon this opportunity as the mainstream parties will discredit themselves in their inability to deal with the issue. In crises such as the one that will explode within the next 50 years or, people will turn to a caesar, as was the case with Mussolini, Hitler, or FDR. Change happens in this chaos.

>>>Yep. But the unassimiable majorities in Western nations by 2100 (at the latest) will change the values and culture of Western Europe, US, etc.

That is possible. It even seems likely at this point. It is not inevitable, however. I doubt that we will creep along until the year 2100. There will be a severe economic depression which will open the way to radical movements that are marginalised today. There is no telling what will emerge out of this, although it is still possible that a solution may present itself.

>>> The immigration itself is not the transvaluation of values, it is the fact that these people who come from nations where the cultural and racial rebirth is occuring (specifically Islamic nations) will bring with them these values and ideals and as a result of their numbers within Western nations will alter the nations' existance.

I don't see a cultural rebirth going on in this places. I see, actually, the poorer parts of the world going through the modernisation process. As these societies become more literate, the more well off members of these societies become intensely aware of their own backwardness and turn towards radical movements. Take Iran for instance. Several decades ago, Iran was a radical place. Now the religious fervor has subsided and the mullahs there are tottering before the demands of the public for reform. Saudi Arabia will probably have its own Iranian Revolution, but will eventually take the same course, although I doubt it would be as radical, as the Sunnis have always made a clearer distinction between secular and religious rulers than the Sh'ia.

Western Civilization, which, aside from a few (relativley minor) Turkic and Mongol incursions, had remained virtually untouched by other peoples and empires.
LOL this is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Thanks for bringing some comic relief to the Highbrow section.