The Fall of the West (It's Happening Now)

timothyu · Dec 13, 2025

RamiC said:
You are describing a culture being usurped by another, apparently because it is a danger in a democracy...an actual example please?

How about south Africa or what is stated in the article above from another thread? If the old culture in the UK refuses to see it due to political correctness, then fine. Like I said before, people loved to tout democracy until they realize it can be used to overcome by outside forces.

RamiC · Dec 13, 2025

timothyu said:
How about south Africa or what is stated in the article above from another thread? If the old culture in the UK refuses to see it due to political correctness, then fine. Europe itself may not agree.

The biggest change I know of in South Africa was a switch to democracy, not a usurping of culture. The undemocratic system they had previously ceased to be financially viable, so they changed. There was no creep withing an existing democracy.

There is a wrong shift in the UK, a steady abandonement of Christianity consistantly happening since WW1. I do not believe there is some slow, uncontested take over by Islam occuring. If you are talking about "wokeness", Islam is not such a good example, because if you mention "gay rights", the Muslims turn out not to be "woke".

timothyu · Dec 13, 2025

RamiC said:
The biggest change I know of in South Africa was a switch to democracy, not a usurping of culture.

There definitely was. It gave the original culture an opportunity to take back their country from the Belgians. As far as today goes, let any culture build up to a point they can become elected and the old culture can be eroded. Because religious values are being allowed to override secular out of fears of being called racist or bigoted, the tides will change. When these tides change the old laws and bills of right can also be amended, along with it the civilization that built the countries in the first place.

RamiC · Dec 13, 2025

timothyu said:
Because religious values are being allowed to override secular out of fears of being called racist or bigoted, the tides will change.

Christians should probably be concerned about actually being racist or bigoted.

As I have pointed out already, Christianity is now a minority thing here, and while it is not up to much at the present time, we have an established church in the UK. We never did the "separation of powers". Sharia courts are not taking over, they have always been legal, but are not legally binding.

timothyu · Dec 13, 2025

RamiC said:
As I have pointed out already, Christianity is now a minority thing here, and while it is not up to much at the present time, we have an established church in the UK. We never did the "separation of powers". Sharia courts are not taking over, they have always been legal, but are not legally binding.

Understood. But consider that the monarchy heading that church can be eliminated by democratic means through parliament, removing any edge it may have at present. And parliament can be controlled by the majority, regardless of which religion or culture they may represent. The old assumption that the founders of nations will continue to control, is out the window simply because a pre-Babel like occurrence is happening again.

Consider the US of A as an example. Over 60+ years ago there was a surge of Muslims there by way of the black movement. Yet this was not disrupting as these converts still were part of the fabric of the nation that they grew up in. They were home grown. Not so today as outside influence has brought their old ways, refusing to leave them back at home where they came from. And the system is being used by crying persecution in order to gain a foot hold. Man's systems only work when unthreatened by outside influence. We've taken a serious step backwards thanks to the utopian idea of living as one. Ain't gonna happen. Ask the American Indians. God scattered the people into nations for a reason.

Robban · Dec 13, 2025

timothyu said:
Understood. But consider that the monarchy heading that church can be eliminated by democratic means through parliament, removing any edge it may have at present. And parliament can be controlled by the majority, regardless of which religion or culture they may represent. The old assumption that the founders of nations will continue to control, is out the window simply because a pre-Babel like occurrence is happening again.

Consider the US of A as an example. Over 60+ years ago there was a surge of Muslims there by way of the black movement. Yet this was not disrupting as these converts still were part of the fabric of the nation that they grew up in. They were home grown. Not so today as outside influence has brought their old ways, refusing to leave them back at home where they came from. And the system is being used by crying persecution in order to gain a foot hold. Man's systems only work when unthreatened by outside influence. We've taken a serious step backwards thanks to the utopian idea of living as one. Ain't gonna happen. Ask the American Indians. God scattered the people into nations for a reason.

I too see from that angle concerning Babel, though for the risk of being seen as insane, I keep it to myself.

But I steer clear of politics, it would be like walking into a minefield.

Abraham was the most generous person to ever walk the face of the earth, if anyone is a child of Abraham, then they will do as Abraham.

You know, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

RamiC · Dec 13, 2025

timothyu said:
Not so today as outside influence has brought their old ways, refusing to leave them back at home where they came from. And the system is being used by crying persecution in order to gain a foot hold. Man's systems only work when unthreatened by outside influence. We've taken a serious step backwards thanks to the utopian idea of living as one.

Well the USA voters need to decide if they want freedom of religion, or if they want to limit who can enter the country based on religion.

"Man's" systems are surely "man's" regardless of country, religion or culture? The "outside influence" you are reffering to is also from "man".

timothyu · Dec 13, 2025

RamiC said:
Man's" systems are surely "man's" regardless of country, religion or culture? The "outside influence" you are reffering to is also from "man".

And man is notorious for self-interest.

stevevw · Dec 16, 2025

I think all the recent conflicts on immigration and national identity is a recent problem due to an unreal idea about mixing cultures where they can all have rights to their own culture while at the same time trying to have a unified nation of people under the one cultural identity.

In the past it use to be that immigrants came to western nations to live as western nations did. They took on the host nations culture. This did not mean they had to give up their heritage. But when it came to alligence or values between the two it was to the host nations. So after a few generations these immigrants were becoming new Americans or British by culture.

I lived in England for some time and I nearly fell over when I first heard a guy from Nigeria speak with a broad Scottish accent. He was as Scottish as a traditional red head lol.

I visited many of the main cities like London. Birmingham, Sheffied and Manchester ect and it seemed that the immigrants were gathered together in enclaves mainly in larger cities. So much so that they were not speaking English and there was often conflicts with other sectors and groups outside the area.

I think this is going to be the issue moving forward like we are seeing in Europe and now my nation Australia even. That the culture war has moved from all these identities to primarily a Left and Right divide on immigration and national identity.

Many are seeing how immigration was pushed too hard and fast without integration. As the populations increased the divide has moved from a localised problem to now national levels of security and safety. There are now large enclaves of people fighting over culture, which culture should be allowed.

On the streets as we are seeing rising groups of nationalists verses immigrants and supporters (especially middle eastern and muslim). Because of the recent terror and radicalism that has been thrust upon the west by the growth of radical Islam. And strangely enough antisemetism is rising to make matters worse. All red flags of a nation breaking apart.

At the same time a perfect storm is brewing in that radicals are growing on both sides of mainstream politics over pro and anti immigration. Those who have protested in the past that western nations are colonialist and support open borders are adding fuel to the fire which helps the Islamist cause.

While at the same time the more extreme the Left becomes an equal and opposite reaction of extreme right will rise in the name of defending national identity and interests.

This is the culmination of poor ideas and policies that have been allowed to go on for a long time.

There needs to be a complete overhaul of the immigration system and the whole idea of whether immigration is really a good idea. Or at least to be careful about who is allowed to come in and the importance that a nation needs a unified identity and not the unreal idea of having many identities that are all equal at the same time. Its impossible and it ends up a great big mess.

Stopped_lurking · Dec 16, 2025

timothyu said:
There definitely was. It gave the original culture an opportunity to take back their country from the Belgians. As far as today goes, let any culture build up to a point they can become elected and the old culture can be eroded. Because religious values are being allowed to override secular out of fears of being called racist or bigoted, the tides will change. When these tides change the old laws and bills of right can also be amended, along with it the civilization that built the countries in the first place.

Belgians? Afrikaaner, dutch settlers from way back? The english settlers also benefited from and supported the apartheid system.

essentialsaltes · Dec 16, 2025

stevevw said:
I think all the recent conflicts on immigration and national identity is a recent problem due to an unreal idea about mixing cultures where they can all have rights to their own culture while at the same time trying to have a unified nation of people under the one cultural identity.

Unreal or not, that's what the founders bequeathed to us in the United States.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

[E]very one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

timothyu · Dec 16, 2025

stevevw said:
They took on the host nations culture.

Exactly. They act like tourists today, expecting the places they visit to be like home but just look different.

stevevw · Dec 17, 2025

timothyu said:
Exactly. They act like tourists today, expecting the places they visit to be like home but just look different.

Not just tourist because when being a tourist people respect the culture. They get in trouble if they don't know how to properly respect the culture. In fact most appreciate the culture and want to experience the different culture and get to know it when visiting.

But some immigrants come to impose their culture over the local culture. I think this is not the fault of the immigrants but the host culture who has created such conditions with a misplaced idea that a society can have multiple cultural identities with the same levels of authority at the same time.

Its not even cultural differences really. But a human ethical issue about how society should be ordered. Most immigrants who came post 1st and 2nd WW had a similar value system though they were different ethnically. The Italians and Greeks supported democracy and human Rights. Especially after the 2nd WW when we created the UN and the HR charter.

Most of the world understood these truth principles. So any immigrant who came it did not matter their cultural traditions and customs. So long as they shared the same Life Principles and Values it usually allowed people to integrate and still hold their specific cultural beliefs.

But what is happening is different now and I think this is an engineered change in ideological worldview and how western nations see immigration and should order themselves as a society and nation. As though the need to be politically correct about race was more important than the practical policies and rules that maintained a stable society. This is an ideological belief and not reality.

Almost sacrificing the hosts identity being undermined by its own people due to political correctness. An over correction and misplaced guilt that free nations had to put others before themselves due to the belief that the west are the bad guys. Thus in the process attacking their own culture and destablising it with division and hate.

stevevw · Dec 27, 2025

Can't post. Some posts work and others don't.

stevevw · Dec 27, 2025

timothyu said:
Exactly. They act like tourists today, expecting the places they visit to be like home but just look different.

Yes. I remember always the host nations culture dominated. Immigrants came to be Americans, or British or in my nation Australians.

Now it seems like the host nations are the bad guys and need to be replaced with other cultures and ideas.

timothyu · Dec 27, 2025

Putting rights ahead of responsibilities

ViaCrucis · Dec 27, 2025

I know I've posted in this thread before. But seeing the thread title again led me to have a few inquisitive thoughts.

So, like, what even is "The West"?

This is a genuine and sincere question. What does the phrase "The West" mean, exactly? We would need a clear definition of "The West" in order to even talk about its "fall".

Because I can think of several things which "The West" means.

The most obvious is "Western Civilization", and I know that there are some easy definitions of what that is. A summary might be that it is the collective whole of Greco-Roman and post-Greco-Roman civilization that has chiefly dominated in Europe (especially, or maybe specifically, Western and Central Europe, including the British Isles). And possibly a side-definition of "Christian Civilization" though that actually creates far more questions than it answers (given the importance of Christianity, historically, outside of Europe). So maybe we'll stick to the Europe definition?

Perhaps a summary of "Western Civilization" is the civilizational structures which emerged out of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. This would then, also, include the colonial projects undertaken in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries; as such the United States would be included as it is a colonial nation rooted in the colonial projects of several European powers, chiefly the British. Then Canada, Australia, much of Latin America, would then also be included.

That raises a further question. Is Latin America included in the definition of "The West"? Again, genuinely curious. Because if the United States is part of the "The West" due to being part of the larger milieu of "Western Civilization" as a product of European colonial endeavors--then the same must also be true of Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, Honduras, etc.

Would, then, a "fall of the West" be inclusive of Latin America?

But--okay--more questions.

While colonial projects sometimes resulted in independent ex-colonies; there are also examples of colonial projects which have resulted not so much in independent colonies as independence against colonization--India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh for example, but also most African nations. Also many Asian nations, both West Asia (the Near East) and South-East Asia, such as Malaysia. But would we include Iraq, Mozambique, and Indonesia as "the West"?

I mean, to varying degrees, certain historically "western" ideas and values have been incorporated in large parts of the world. We live, now in the 21st century, in a world of nation-states, and most--arguably--adhere to some form of westernized democracy. Though this "Westernization" is seen not only in post-colonial nations, but also in those which were never formally colonized, for example Japan has a Parliament. China is officially a single-party Communist nation, having adopted USSR-style Communism through the Maoist revolution. Is Japan part of "The West" because it has adopted a democratic form of government and generally subscribes to Liberal-Secular principles?

Wait, does "The West" refer to Liberal-Secular ideas such as the nation-state, individual liberty, democracy, etc? Is that what "The West" is? Liberal-Secularism? Both Capitalism and Communism are the products of Western Liberal political philosophy.

Okay so maybe I'm just not entirely clear on what "The West" is that speaking of "the fall of the West" is fully meaningful.

Could someone help me out here?

Robban · Dec 28, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
I know I've posted in this thread before. But seeing the thread title again led me to have a few inquisitive thoughts.

So, like, what even is "The West"?

This is a genuine and sincere question. What does the phrase "The West" mean, exactly? We would need a clear definition of "The West" in order to even talk about its "fall".

Because I can think of several things which "The West" means.

The most obvious is "Western Civilization", and I know that there are some easy definitions of what that is. A summary might be that it is the collective whole of Greco-Roman and post-Greco-Roman civilization that has chiefly dominated in Europe (especially, or maybe specifically, Western and Central Europe, including the British Isles). And possibly a side-definition of "Christian Civilization" though that actually creates far more questions than it answers (given the importance of Christianity, historically, outside of Europe). So maybe we'll stick to the Europe definition?

Perhaps a summary of "Western Civilization" is the civilizational structures which emerged out of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. This would then, also, include the colonial projects undertaken in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries; as such the United States would be included as it is a colonial nation rooted in the colonial projects of several European powers, chiefly the British. Then Canada, Australia, much of Latin America, would then also be included.

That raises a further question. Is Latin America included in the definition of "The West"? Again, genuinely curious. Because if the United States is part of the "The West" due to being part of the larger milieu of "Western Civilization" as a product of European colonial endeavors--then the same must also be true of Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, Honduras, etc.

Would, then, a "fall of the West" be inclusive of Latin America?

But--okay--more questions.

While colonial projects sometimes resulted in independent ex-colonies; there are also examples of colonial projects which have resulted not so much in independent colonies as independence against colonization--India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh for example, but also most African nations. Also many Asian nations, both West Asia (the Near East) and South-East Asia, such as Malaysia. But would we include Iraq, Mozambique, and Indonesia as "the West"?

I mean, to varying degrees, certain historically "western" ideas and values have been incorporated in large parts of the world. We live, now in the 21st century, in a world of nation-states, and most--arguably--adhere to some form of westernized democracy. Though this "Westernization" is seen not only in post-colonial nations, but also in those which were never formally colonized, for example Japan has a Parliament. China is officially a single-party Communist nation, having adopted USSR-style Communism through the Maoist revolution. Is Japan part of "The West" because it has adopted a democratic form of government and generally subscribes to Liberal-Secular principles?

Wait, does "The West" refer to Liberal-Secular ideas such as the nation-state, individual liberty, democracy, etc? Is that what "The West" is? Liberal-Secularism? Both Capitalism and Communism are the products of Western Liberal political philosophy.

Okay so maybe I'm just not entirely clear on what "The West" is that speaking of "the fall of the West" is fully meaningful.

Could someone help me out here?

In general I see it as a collective term for the spirit of haughtiness.

durangodawood · Dec 28, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
I know I've posted in this thread before. But seeing the thread title again led me to have a few inquisitive thoughts.

So, like, what even is "The West"?

This is a genuine and sincere question. What does the phrase "The West" mean, exactly? We would need a clear definition of "The West" in order to even talk about its "fall".

Because I can think of several things which "The West" means.

The most obvious is "Western Civilization", and I know that there are some easy definitions of what that is. A summary might be that it is the collective whole of Greco-Roman and post-Greco-Roman civilization that has chiefly dominated in Europe (especially, or maybe specifically, Western and Central Europe, including the British Isles). And possibly a side-definition of "Christian Civilization" though that actually creates far more questions than it answers (given the importance of Christianity, historically, outside of Europe). So maybe we'll stick to the Europe definition?

Perhaps a summary of "Western Civilization" is the civilizational structures which emerged out of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. This would then, also, include the colonial projects undertaken in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries; as such the United States would be included as it is a colonial nation rooted in the colonial projects of several European powers, chiefly the British. Then Canada, Australia, much of Latin America, would then also be included.

That raises a further question. Is Latin America included in the definition of "The West"? Again, genuinely curious. Because if the United States is part of the "The West" due to being part of the larger milieu of "Western Civilization" as a product of European colonial endeavors--then the same must also be true of Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, Honduras, etc.

Would, then, a "fall of the West" be inclusive of Latin America?

But--okay--more questions.

While colonial projects sometimes resulted in independent ex-colonies; there are also examples of colonial projects which have resulted not so much in independent colonies as independence against colonization--India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh for example, but also most African nations. Also many Asian nations, both West Asia (the Near East) and South-East Asia, such as Malaysia. But would we include Iraq, Mozambique, and Indonesia as "the West"?

I mean, to varying degrees, certain historically "western" ideas and values have been incorporated in large parts of the world. We live, now in the 21st century, in a world of nation-states, and most--arguably--adhere to some form of westernized democracy. Though this "Westernization" is seen not only in post-colonial nations, but also in those which were never formally colonized, for example Japan has a Parliament. China is officially a single-party Communist nation, having adopted USSR-style Communism through the Maoist revolution. Is Japan part of "The West" because it has adopted a democratic form of government and generally subscribes to Liberal-Secular principles?

Wait, does "The West" refer to Liberal-Secular ideas such as the nation-state, individual liberty, democracy, etc? Is that what "The West" is? Liberal-Secularism? Both Capitalism and Communism are the products of Western Liberal political philosophy.

Okay so maybe I'm just not entirely clear on what "The West" is that speaking of "the fall of the West" is fully meaningful.

Could someone help me out here?

What would help me is: what are the various alternatives to "the west"? If I could see a list of things that sit in the same category with "the west" , then I could more easily draw a boundary around it.

Like the way I understand "capitalism" better when I contrast it with the other members of the set: "economic systems" such as feudalism, socialism etc.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

The Fall of the West (It's Happening Now)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-----------

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

-----------

re Member

Similar threads