I think a dichotomy emerges when we talk about decline. Almost as if cooperation is impossible. Nationalists seem to speak in terms of East vs West, probably because of the realisation that unipolarity is no longer a fact of the world, we live in multipolarity and yet Imperial desires still thrive in the west. The recent capture of Venezuela by Trump and his threats towards Greenland seem to speak a language that occidental positivists can't grasp.
South America has always been a target for the USA, be it through coups or through direct intervention - all in the name of oil and commodities in order to 'preserve freedom and democracy'. Yet these countries reside in the Western hemisphere too. It seems Western/Occidental only applies to Anglo-American notions of expansion.
Trump speaks of cooperation with Russia, China and opposes European states as he billigerently protects US interests above all else. He is even going into direct conflict with Denmark over the Greenland territory. Is it truly correct to say that he is just a Russian plant, or is the liberal media unable to compute that these conficts with Russia are based on older regimes, outdated alliances and one where we were preserving Empires long gone?
I'm not saying I support Trump but the reordering of the world around us is definitely shifting. How can we avoid WW3? Aren't both of those wars a means towards building and preserving Empires? Globalisation has made Empire practicaly irrelevant.
Is it really a decline, or just a shift?
Re: Is western civilization going to decline
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2026 9:05 am
by kFoyauextlH
I can't perceive a decline when it comes to governments as it seems they are operating similarly to how they have been. I can perceive a decline when it comes to how society is presented by the people in popular media, as things like self-exploitation openly being increasingly normalized and the basic knowledge and literacy of people seemingly going downhill along with comprehension and all that supposedly out the window according to the internet and their anecdotal evidence along with certain studies. All those things were supposedly headed towards improvement at a certain point and now by the varying standards of different people they are headed in an unfavorable direction, namely vulgarity, vice, and sometimes rewarded stupidity, hubris, hostility, and hypocrisy. The people are being pushed towards a lack of ethics, or at least such is proclaimed, which then seems to beg for strict measures to forcibly "clean house". America doesn't seem all that different from the hate-filled Bush era or even the hate-filled eras before, like the time of McCarthyism, the Vietnam era and apparent decline of the 70s depicted in the Joker film, and even earlier times like the period depicted in the film Gangs Of New York.
These are the same pieces of sh*t as they tended to be, with perhaps less vocabulary and decorum overall, a loose lipped bunch of possibly more transparent and less tactful people than ever before, among both the population and their representation in the government.
I don't think it is a decline or even a shift really when it comes to America and Americans behaving like this. There have been more and longer periods like this than any periods remembered of bucolic serenity when it comes to the feisty, war mongering, population harassing U.S.A.
For a very long time they terrorized and were supposedly terrorized by the local population, then they had issues with their human slaves, then they took to killing each other on a huge scale once again after a Revolution which had turned people against each other similar to the Civil War. I don't think anything will really come of any of this, but I do hope that good things might happen.
Ideally, what I'd like to happen by accident or on purpose is that Trump triggers the entire world population to turn against all their leaders and all corporations and the lifestyle of eork and subjugation and even territorial restrictions and restrictions on travel, and everyone turns against all policing including Airport Security invasiveness propped up by false flag terror in the fashion of Operation Gladio. That the people despise all authority and tear down all the institutions in a blind and aimless rage at everything and almost everyone, particularly the elite class and the shepherds of the people, that all trust is irredeemably lost and it leads to a course of events that abolish most governance, policing, and beaureucratic interventions and stagnation and money grubbing and handling for a while, even more fantastically forever.
I don't think such a dreamy condition might ever occur until The Kingdom Of Heaven, but until then, even less than what is happening currently is too much like a terrible hell, especially based on the dramatic focus presented by the specific scenes presented by the media and videos filmed by supposed "ordinary people".
Added in 8 minutes 8 seconds:
I also find it hard to believe that a reofrm will occur with the general populace in the West without a religious revival, which aldo has a strong chance of being utterly terrible. I want great things to happen but since they never seemingly have, I feel terrible about being hopelessly pessimistic.
I like Trump more than any President of the U.S.A. short of Jimmy Carter who I like most of all and really only probably, but the major upheaval Trump is supposedly singularly responsible for is exciting, and I would expect others even doing similar or identical things to do it without as much potential for people to get activated towards perpetual dissatisfaction and constant and increasingly aggressive efforts for extreme reforms and reversals and eliminations of certain loopholes that might make for a better future system.
The best things happening are that many more people, more than ever maybe, are turning against whatever they are calling "Imperialism", authoritarianism, wars, violence, aggressive policing, and lots of power snd weaponry and resources going to people who wield it all against the detoothed and very weak seeming population. I'd like to see the balance changed in favor of the "mob" and the peasants.
Some of the things going on seem unique in history, but it could be that a lot of the very stupid stuff from the past is being misinterpreted as not stupid now or was destroyed or is being ignored or hasn't been rediscovered, like if historically there would be a phase of things getting ridiculous, but that would be most likely under extremely prosperiys conditions so that wastefulness was less of a big deal and less aggravating for everyone. Ostentatious use of resources would repeatedly occur by haughty leaders but evidence for frivolous seeming silly works being very prevalent in material art isn't commonly shown or known, and the assumption is that at the very least these materials and constructing such works and the interest in them was such that the kind of things many may call total modernist garbage and "pop" art today didn't seem to appear as frequently or maybe at all for thousands of years of the past as far as anyone can tell. Where is all the sh*t and why are moderns seemingly coprophilic? I'd not mind these huge amounts of things I consider ugly to stop getting new production, in a way similar to wanting racism abolished as a cultural "ugliness" or impropriety.
Added in 13 minutes 45 seconds:
All this extra utilitarianism and oppressive style post WWII has to stop, along with the political figures that keep it up and continue to spread dire ugliness everywhere:
"
Brutalist architecture is an architectural style that emerged during the 1950s in the United Kingdom, among the reconstruction projects of the post-war era.[1][2][3][4][5] Brutalist buildings are characterised by minimalist construction showcasing the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design.[6][7] The style commonly makes use of exposed, unpainted concrete or brick, angular geometric shapes and a predominantly monochrome colour palette;[7][8] other materials, such as steel, timber, and glass, are also featured.[9]
Descended from modernism, brutalism is said to be a reaction against the nostalgia of architecture in the 1940s.[10] Derived from the Swedish word nybrutalism, the term "new brutalism" was first used by British architects Alison and Peter Smithson for their pioneering approach to design.[8][11][12] The style was further popularised in a 1955 essay by architectural critic Reyner Banham, who also associated the movement with the French phrases béton brut ("raw concrete") and art brut ("raw art").[13][14] The style, as developed by architects such as the Smithsons, Hungarian-born Ernő Goldfinger, and the British firm Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, was partly foreshadowed by the modernist work of other architects such as French-Swiss Le Corbusier, Estonian-American Louis Kahn, German-American Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and Finnish Alvar Aalto.[7][15]
In the United Kingdom, brutalism was featured in the design of utilitarian, low-cost social housing influenced by socialist principles and soon spread to other regions around the world, while being echoed by similar styles like in Eastern Europe.[16][6][7][17] Brutalist designs became most commonly used in the design of institutional buildings, such as provincial legislatures, public works projects, universities, libraries, courts, and city halls. The popularity of the movement began to decline in the late 1970s, with some associating the style with urban decay and totalitarianism.[7] Brutalism's popularity in socialist and communist nations owed to traditional styles being associated with the bourgeoisie, whereas concrete emphasized equality.[18]
Brutalism has been polarising historically; specific buildings, as well as the movement as a whole, have drawn a range of criticism (often being described as "cold"). There are often public-led campaigns to demolish brutalist buildings. Some people are favourable to the style, and in the United Kingdom some buildings have been preserved.
"
Added in 1 day 6 hours 2 minutes 34 seconds:
Added in 40 minutes 52 seconds:
He released the video on January 15th and seemed to experience some smell incident in the video also.
Re: Is western civilization going to decline
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2026 12:41 pm
by kFoyauextlH
Were people in the past smarter or just never heard from?
Re: Is western civilization going to decline
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2026 4:31 am
by kFoyauextlH
Even though videos like these are edited for the silliest moments and interactions, a lot of these together can give a strong impression of the state of some people using the internet like this and what some people are like today.
People are making money from being really racist, and these other efforts seem to be encouraging it too, that both sides of the coin seem to ultimately be working together and benefitting one another, setting up something to get a response which aldo pushes things into bad seeming territory.
This is her whole thing, and it looks like she has money behind her.
"
Life is fundamentally about the accumulation of power – this ‘will to power’ – and when it is
absent or lacking, decline results.11 Nietzsche’s ideal then is that someone or something is a relevant
and integrated whole, and that in order to flourish, it must achieve and maintain a certain kind of
unity. However, this unity is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for flourishing. In an earlier
text Nietzsche states that even an “inferior and degenerate” culture can have a type of unity.12 A
genuine and flourishing culture and presumably an individual require then other ‘virtues’ –
properties – in addition to just unity.13 It would appear that of importance are also what elements
are being unified, and the underlying quality of those elements. For example, decadence in a cultural
entity such as a work of literature manifests itself as a stylistic defect. A novel is made deficient by its
author thoughtlessly interspersing it with strikingly refined sentences at the expense of
characterisation and plot, which undermines its overall unity and coherence.
Evidently style matters greatly to Nietzsche. The quality of the component parts of an entity
is important for achieving a unity of great style. His model of style is drawn from a classical aesthetic
perspective. He often talks of ‘great style’ that characterizes the finest Greek and Roman cultural
products, one that was “no longer just as art”, but exhibits a propensity to confront “reality, truth,
life”, by virtue of the embracement of scientific methods.14 This model is also applied to individuals,
where the classical ideal is associated with a stronger, well-formed and rounded ‘higher’ type, who is
compared to the flawed specimens of modernity.15 Nietzsche claims that the unconscious and
underlying drives and instincts,16 such as the drive for food or sex that direct behaviour, are reflected in our conscious thoughts and actions.17 Drives are desires or needs (Bedürfnisse) such as the drive
to seek sustenance – that seek to dominate, and orientate a person. As Nietzsche puts it in a late
note, “[e]very drive is a kind of lust for domination (Herrschsucht); each has its perspective, which it
would like to impose as a norm on all the other drives.”18 With the presence of a deep-seated
organizing ‘idea’, the optimal configuration of these drives is achieved.19 The end product is an ideal
‘higher’ type of well-constituted individual, who because of their resolute capacity to accept reality
for what it is and faces life head on in a rational manner, exhibits the highest, grandest style – which
is the gratifying expression of their robust will to power.20 For Nietzsche then, style can be said to be
an emergent property that gives us insight into the inner workings of the body, and so he defines
style as the ability to communicate21 a state of mind.22 For example, in an early text, he describes the
writing style of two of his favourite philosophers – Schopenhauer and Montaigne – as projecting one
of honesty and cheerfulness.23 However, there is no one law of style. There are different states and
ways of life, and the individual can learn from culture. Unity of style is the sign of a model writer24
and also of an authentic culture.25 When one has achieved a unity akin to that of culture, one will
have a unity of style – namely “great style”.26
Nietzsche’s conception of decadence as disunity then works at a number of levels. Most
obviously there appears to be a lack of unity of component parts within the individual or cultural
17 Conway (1997), pp. 30-32, claims that due to his theory of decadence, from 1888 Nietzsche makes a subtle distinction
between drive or impulse (Trieb), and instinct (Instinkt), and that prior to this date, he had always used the terms
interchangeably. Conway’s distinction has generally been rejected: “According to Conway . . . Instinkt refers to a Trieb that
has been “organized” or “trained to discharge” in a specific way . . . I find Conway’s textual evidence for this alleged
distinction unpersuasive”, Katsafanas (2013), p. 727. In a similar vein – and in my view with more success – Huddleston
(2019), p. 85, argues that when discussing decadence in TI: Socrates, 11: “Nietzsche in this passage uses ‘instinct’ [Instinkt]
in both its singular and its plural form, two times each. He is not always consistent with his terminology, and in this context,
‘instinct’ (singular) and ‘instincts’ (plural) make most sense when seen as referring to different things: ‘Instincts’ are
animalistic drives (though shaped somewhat as well by one’s social context). ‘Instinct’ (as it is used in the singular here) is
being able to act in a way that comes as second nature. Acting with instinct (in this sense) is not a matter of just letting
impulses (instincts in the former sense) take their course; it is an ability one develops or achieves through painstaking work
entity. However, due to the inextricable relationship that exists between the individual as a social
animal, and that of the society that the individual has little choice but to dwell in, I will show that
Nietzsche’s conception of decadence should also be construed as a disunity that develops between
individuals and society. I will examine this possibility after looking first at what for Nietzsche
constitutes decadence in the individual.
1.3 Decadence and the Individual: Nietzsche’s Three
Formulae, Two Recipes and One Analogy for Decadence
In this section I will analyse Nietzsche’s conception of decadence in the individual which he portrays
as a form of disunity and fundamentally a physiological disorder.27 Decadents are the “ill-constituted”
(Mißrathenen),28 the embodiment of physiological weakness,29 and according to Nietzsche it is this
physiological type that comprises the vast majority of individuals.30 Their weakness reveals itself in
symptoms that are visible only to a suitably cognisant interpreter of modernity:
Today we no longer know how to separate moral and physiological degeneration: the former
is merely a symptom-complex of the latter; one is necessarily bad, just as one is necessarily
ill.31
Manifestations of these symptoms are to be found in the moral beliefs, values and behaviour of
individuals. In another notebook entry we find a wide-ranging list of what he regards as expressions
of decadence:
Consequences of decadence: vice–the addiction to vice; sickness–sickliness; crime–criminaIity;
celibacy–sterility; hystericism–weakness of the will; alcoholism; pessimism; anarchism;
libertinism (also of the spirit). The slanderers, underminers, doubters, destroyers.
"
Haha, they actually are hissing like that, which I recently saw in this video:
Poverty and a lack of education and social cohesion, national acceptance through assimilation measures, may all be contributing to a rewarded mass psychosis of hopelessness, ignorance, and decadence, headed towards swarming peasant masses cannibalizing each other, the likely desire of the people driving the increasing gap between their tiny minority and the rest, eleminating a middle class bridge.
Re: Is western civilization going to decline
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:45 am
by kFoyauextlH
Uh oh! I'm going through lots of information on YouTube and I'm noticing certain voices irk me and maybe the thing that ties them all together is that they seem belong to various types of nerds or otherwise idiots? Some are intelligent enough seeming but then nerdy on nerd topics, others are really dunb sounding, and there seems to be a "color" thing too, where the annoyjng nerd voices on nerd topics seem to be caucasians of a European background, white North Americans, and then there are the others who sound really forcefully dumb, like they come from a culture that enforces dumbness by criticizing everything that sounds smart or white (sort of like I'm doing right now) and they go Bruh Bruh and sound like r*t*rded basically, and many of these people across YouTube speak in a manner I've never heard among anyone anywhere regardless of where they are from, so it is very strange, but I have recently heard it bejng imitated among young people.
These voices aggravate me and make it difficult to go through these collections of information, though these videos may be the easiest and most convenient way to do so as there aren't too many exhaustive written articles about some of these things, so I put these on fast forward with subtitles too if I can and try to breeze through them, with special attention to the visuals and also themes and my own humungous mental storage of references to draw upon which these people may not know about or realize. Their voices, accents, and ways that I imagine they are as people, based on thrir voices and "jokes", is almost like torture for me, I've practically never seen or heard people like this, but also feel that any interaction would be unbareable and necessarily as brief as possible. I imagine that such people might even dislike me if they were to see me or hear me, even though I seem to get along well with everyone, for that specific reason, out of jealousy, since there is no foubt that ehatever is rubbing me the wrong way about these nerds and dummies would likely rub others the wrong way too, and make these people feel socially stigmatized and shunned, whereas I feel typically very well received and well liked instantly based on any interaction or even on sight, even after getting a little heftier over the last few years of being less active.
Here is at least the video that prompted this writing:
I just noticed their name, "Iron Pineapple", and that irritated me too, but I appreciate that these hateful losers are the only people producing anything containing this information in a way I can maybe more easily run through, but argh. Though whatever it is about them that gets on my nerves may not be noticeable to others, and it may just seem minimal based on this example, I think that maybe more work needs to be done on trying to make people, particularly people presenting information and creating material for consumption like this, should be urged to be more palatable and have training available or even emphasized in schools that teaches an almost formal way in which not to dound like either an annoying white wimp nerd or a dumb tanned troglodyte:
