In my first article on Substack, I want to introduce myself and to give some background on my approach to “Saving Western Civilization”. As you will see, the idea of “Saving Western Civilization” is nothing new. It has been tried many times before, and it clearly has not worked over the long-haul. There are a number of reasons for that, but the most likely is that the definition of what “Western Civilization” means has changed, and will continue to change, over time.
With the idea of “Saving Western Civilization” having been discussed many times and at length in the past, I thought about changing the name of this newsletter. I decided to keep the name - after all, that is my goal. That is my challenge.
Instead of echoing what people have proposed in the past, or instead of repeating what others are talking about in the media today, my intent for this article is to describe a different approach – to work up to an explanation of how I perceive the real threats to Western Civilization, and what I would do to address those threats – to describe an approach that is different from those that have come before, or those currently being discussed. I’ll end with a warning, and a request.
My approach is a comprehensive approach. It is an approach that looks at real “root causes” (not the kind of pre-conceived “root causes” that our politicians promote1) and “failure modes” to describe the problem, and including the necessary concessions, compromises, and contingencies when it comes to defining solutions.
When people talk about Western Civilization, it is not often that they share a common understanding of what “Western Civilization” actually means. This became apparent to me after I got the idea to write a book that I tentatively titled “12-Easy Steps to Save Western Civilization”, and after then I started gathering supporting information for the book.
As an engineer whose writing is generally of a more technical nature, I follow a method for writing that starts off by first defining the scope of the problem, and then including a section aimed toward clarifying terms – stating what words, phrases, abbreviations, and acronyms mean - within the context of the document being prepared. From the engineer’s perspective, it is absolutely critical that the problem being addressed is clearly defined, and that the language – the meaning of the words being used to discuss the problem and its solution – are clearly understood by all involved with the project.
As I set out to find an all-inclusive, comprehensive meaning for Western Civilization to include in “12-Easy Steps”, I quickly found that there is not a common, single meaning out there. It became clear that “Western Civilization” means something different to almost anyone you talk to.
How do you define Western Civilization? If you can’t define it, you can’t save it.
A detailed search on the Internet confirmed to me that the definition of “Western Civilization” varies widely, depending not only on who you are talking to, but also what comprises their world view, their personal beliefs, their objectives, their religion, their politics, etc. I started making a list of the ideas that others have written about in the past regarding “Saving Western Civilization”, curious whether any parts of those ideas matched my ideas, either in whole or in part. I was surprised with much of what I found.
To me, one of the most telling discussions on the history of past efforts of “Saving Western Civilization” came from a religious source. In this article, the author recounts a story of how St. Benedict of Norcia (480-547) is considered to be the first to save Western Civilization - back around the 6th century AD. The author of that article states that the 12-principles of life need to be revisited in order to save Western Civilization this time – the principles outlined in St. Benedict’s 12-degrees of humility.
“Benedict developed small communities and, in a world where power and bullying, egregious greed and pathological individualism, authoritarianism and narcissism left a sense of community behind, taught that pride is the basic flaw in the human system. Humility, the cornerstone of society, of civilization, of the social order, he taught, is its corrective.
He based his rule of life on 12 principles of humility that, historians say to this day, saved Western Civilization.”
In this article, titled “How to save Western civilization — again”, Joan Chittester2, the author approaches the challenge of saving Western Civilization (the article is from 2019) from the worldview that what worked to save civilization 1,500 years ago would save civilization today – a return to the humility of 6th century monks. As I read through the article, I tried to envision how this might work in the 21st century, and I asked myself questions like:
“Among the nearly 8 billion inhabitants of planet Earth in 2022, how many would be required to adopt and then adhere to St. Benedict’s principles in order for this to work?”
“How many of our Western leaders, our global elite, our athlete role models, our entertainers, and others – the people that normal people around the world emulate today, practice these principles currently? What would it take to get them to do so?”
As I marked St. Benedict’s solution off the list of what I thought were viable, actionable, and immediate options to save the world in 2022, I scanned through other articles by writers who view Western Civilization from a different perspective than I do.
I found that some authors tend to look at Western Civilization through the lens of not only religion, but from a number of other views, such as the view that Western Civilization refers only to the US. Some expand their definition to a geographical description that includes the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries.
Other writers have approached the effort to save Western Civilization from other directions, whether it is related to gender, sexual identity, ideology, etc. The proliferation of articles on this subject is indicative to me of the success of identity politics and other tools used by the enemies of Western Civilization over the last hundred years or so. One would need to write a series of articles to cover that history.
I could go on at length discussing the previous articles that have been written about “Saving Western Civilization”, but I won’t – my goal, my reason for writing this article, is to try to get people on the same page as to what Western Civilization really means in 2022 – or more precisely, what “Modern Western Civilization” looks like today – and to start a new discussion on “Saving Modern Western Civilization”.
Not Everybody Likes Western Civilization, Even Those Who Are Part of Western Civilization
Another eye opener for me as I reviewed past articles about “Saving Western Civilization”, is that there are many people who are actually part of Western Civilization, that benefit from being a part of it, and who actively seek its destruction.
While I am amazed to read some of what those authors have written, I also recognize that I can’t blame the individuals entirely, knowing that they are products of an educational system that was put into place decades ago by one set of enemies of the “old” Western Civilization, and are fed their daily dose of (mis-, mal-, and dis-) information today by another group. It came as a shock that this second group includes both the enemies and also the promoters of the “new”, Modern Western Civilization!
Many members of the West, particularly in Western Europe, those who view Western Civilization being the civilization of the US, despise what they see as the Western Culture due to what they view as excessive consumerism in the US. Others relate capitalism to Western Civilization, and today’s crony capitalism and corporatism (along with what they view as the growing disparity in wealth inequality) is their reason for hating the West. A lot of people seem to relate corporate greed solely to the West.
The list of haters of Western Civilization is long. Some may be “justified” in their hatred of Western Civilization to a degree, explained by differences in ideology or culture, for example. Those that aren’t “justified” – the ones that can’t really give a definition of Western Civilization, or even explain precisely why they hate it – they are the ones that would benefit from the following approach to defining what “Modern Western Civilization” means to themselves and to the world as a whole.
Defining “Modern Western Civilization” by Defining What It Is Not
Defining “Western Civilization” is a challenge. Its meaning has changed over time, and with history as a guide, it will continue to change. To make progress in this effort, one must differentiate between “Western Civilization of the past” and “Modern Western Civilization”. It is critical to separate the present-day version of Western Civilization from the past, in order to work toward a vision for the future!
That realization led me to the idea that to define the current state of Western Civilization in 2022, to be able to convey to people that reside within Western Civilization that definition, and to have them feel the need to participate in it, one must first define what Western Civilization isn’t. While it is impossible to concisely describe what Western Civilization is, it is easy to describe what it isn’t.
From the perspective of geopolitics, religion, the globalism of the World Economic Forum, and most importantly, the perspective that to this day seems to be hidden to many people – the idea of cosmopolitanism - Western Civilization is not a member of, or represented by:
The East, Eurasia, or more precisely, the growing Eurasian Alliance.
Any comprehensive religious ideology that is represented by of combination of the religion itself, and a separate legal system that is in competition with the laws of the nation-state within Western Civilization in which practitioners of that religion reside. ***
The globalist ideals represented by the global Stakeholder Capitalism of the Public-Private Partnerships, and the transhumanist ideas of the Fourth Industrial Revolution put forth by the World Economic Forum.
The concept of Cosmopolitanism – the concept that people are “Citizens of the World” – that people are “stateless”, that the borders of nation-states are meaningless, and that the individual bears no allegiance to a particular country.
In addition to the geopolitics of the East or of Eurasia, Modern Western Civilization is also not represented by the “neutral” countries around the world who do not declare themselves to be part of the East or the West. Those countries do not currently, and cannot in the future, afford to pick a side in the conflict between East and West – they do not have the resources to be fully independent, and are reliant on the East or West in one way or another. They will go whichever way the prevailing winds blow.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations…
If this were an engineering report or a procedure prescribing steps or actions to be taken to execute a project and then see it through to completion, I would give a brief summary, state my conclusions, and then provide recommendations to enhance the probability of success of the operation.
I will refrain from offering such a Summary, Conclusions, or Recommendations in this first article, instead looking for your thoughts on the topic. My request is that you reply in the comments and then send the link to this article to people you know so that they can reply, as well.
Closing thoughts
The 2nd Step of my “12-Easy Steps to Save Western Civilization” is to “Reclaim the Language”. As George Orwell3 describes in “Politics and the English Language”, there is a danger to “feeling impelled” to write on subjects that an individual might be concerned with. He points out that bad usage of language debases the language. He warns readers to be “…constantly on guard…” against abuses of language that “…anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.”
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like ‘a not unjustifiable assumption’, ‘leaves much to be desired’, ‘would serve no good purpose’, ‘a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind’, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning's post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he "felt impelled" to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence I see: "[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany's social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe." You see, he "feels impelled" to write -- feels, presumably, that he has something new to say -- and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases (‘lay the foundations’, ‘achieve a radical transformation’) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain.” ~ George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
I “feel impelled” to write about what is wrong in the world today. I do have” something new to say”. And I will make every effort in the future to prevent my words from taking on the “familiar dreary pattern”, explaining my interpretation and my intent if I do offer up such ready-made phrases. I urge you to do the same – to reclaim the language.
“There Is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language.” ~ George Orwell
Be clear and concise in your language as you attempt to convey your thoughts, but also be aware that the corruption of your language is a weapon being used against you. My warning, as promised at the start of this article, is to be aware of the weapons that the enemies of Western Civilization are using – there are many.
To get a feeling of the effect of the corruption of language, you only need to look back to the recent re-definition of the words: “vaccine” or “racism” or even “Ethics”. For example, with regard to “Ethics”, are you talking about Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (in which the ethics is for the good of the individual and society), or Jean Paul Sartre’s Existential Ethics (sometimes called Sartrean Ethics, which is based on oppression and exploitation)? It makes a difference if you want to understand the world today - anarchists prefer Sartre’s definition.
Or, for a more in-depth understanding as to the absolute danger that manifests after the corruption of language, and how it directly affects us today, look to the definition of “tolerance” set forth by Herbert Marcuse in his essay “Repressive Tolerance” back in 1965. It is that re-definition of “tolerance” that, according to James Lindsay4 in his 4-part “extreme deep-dive” podcast series on Marcuse’s essay, is the underlying logic behind so many cultural problems we are faced with in the West today.
“We live in a crazy world today that seems to have gone off the rails. That’s because it is being driven by a broken logic, and, for all the flaws on the right, that broken logic is centered in the no-longer-tolerant left. The logic of the left today is overwhelmingly rooted in a single essay published in 1965 by the neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse. That essay is “Repressive Tolerance.” The thesis statement of this essay can be boiled down to “movements from the left must be extended tolerance, even when they are violent, while movements from the right must not be tolerated, including suppressing them by violence.” This asymmetric ethic has been the heart and soul of left politics in the West since the 1960s, and we’re living in the fruit of that catastrophe now.” ~ James Lindsay, New Discourses
As I prepare to submit this first article to Substack, I recognize that there will be people who take offense at something I wrote here. If you are one who does, I urge you to recognize that it is not my intent to offend you, but instead to either try to educate you as to your place within Western Civilization (since it is currently under unprecedented attack from a number of fronts), or to confirm to you that you are not a part of Western Civilization - and that your comments will be considered accordingly.
*** NOTE: It is beyond the scope of this article to explain the discrepancies between the concept of Western Civilization and any religious ideology that has a separate legal system. It must be understood, for the future of Western Civilization, that Western Civilization cannot allow a competing legal system to be put into effect, particularly, a legal system for which a parallel society is formed under a set of laws that differ from the laws of the nation-state members of Western Civilization.
“WATCH: Harris hosts Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei for virtual bilateral meeting”, April 26, 2021, PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-harris-hosts-guatemalan-president-alejandro-giammattei-for-virtual-bilateral-meeting
“How to save Western civilization — again”, Joan Chittester, National Catholic Reporter, January 16, 2019. https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/where-i-stand/how-save-western-civilzation-again