Sucking the Blood of a Declining Civilization


Civilization has to be transmitted from one generation to another. If it isn’t, processes break down and life becomes difficult. Soon there must be a painful reform, or else the civilization will be lost.

This is fundamentally the job of families (especially parents), but at the moment that’s not really possible: How many families can survive on one income? And if one of the parents can’t stay home and teach the fundamental lessons of civilization, who will pass them to the next generation?

Certainly the better daycare facilities try, but to think that someone watching a couple dozen kids is going to transmit civilization to them as effectively as a parent who’s with the child day and night is simply ridiculous. The blame for this rests almost solely at the feet of the state of course, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

I’ll begin by quoting the redoubtable Fred Reed on the current situation:

We live in a dying culture and, soon, a diminished country. It cannot be saved.

Not true? Add up the bits and pieces. We laugh in horror, some of us, primarily the older, at the decline of schooling, the courses like Batman and the Struggle for Gender Equity. Comic, yes. Yet in aggregate, these constitute an academic and civilizational collapse both profound and irreversible. Enstupidation does not happen in a healthy country. Who even wants to reverse this onrushing night? Not the universities, nor the teacher’s unions, nor a professoriat gone as daft as the “students,” nor the banks battening on student loans [sic].

I’m more optimistic than Fred in that I think our civilization can be saved. But what he writes is true, and the West’s big institutions are simply vampires sucking the blood of a declining civilization.

I think we can all admit that every major institution of the West, including the mega-corps, is engaged in stripping the Western populace of everything they possibly can. There is no virtue involved, no principle, no honor… there’s not even much consideration for the future. These outfits, under whatever excuses they’re trotting out this year, are strip-mining Western civilization, not building it.

That said, let’s look at some particular villains.

The Political Correctness Barbarians

When I first saw these people rising to power, decades ago now, I thought they were so ridiculous that they’d come and go quickly. Unfortunately I was wrong, and they subverted millions of children. The current insanity over “safe spaces” and such condemns them openly, and especially that it’s becoming acceptable to say “I hate white people.”


It’s one thing to be a simple agnostic. It’s quite another to go out and try to dismember religion… which in nearly every case means Christianity. And to be honest about it, most people who do this are acting out their personal traumas: either in permanent rebellion to their parents or in anger at one church or another.

Slashing and burning things simply bears bad fruit, but here’s the core issue with attacking Christianity:

The people who pushed Christianity out of Western culture were arrogant and destructive – not that they pushed it away, but that they never bothered to replace it.

If you want to remove the moral core of a civilization, you have to replace it with something better. And the religion-haters did not. They sawed off the limb that held them and were too arrogant to consider the consequences.

Academia and the Education Vampires

The Enlightenment sits before us as a twisted wreckage. Its destruction followed the usual path: first setting up institutions, then monopolies and fiefdoms, and finally lording it over others as far and as long as they could.

Education has whored itself out to the state and treats its students as income-generating tools. Are there a few exceptions? I’m sure there are, but they are few. Academia, including most of scientific academia, has disgraced itself. Could any serious Enlightenment thinker have respected “scientific consensus”? Please! Science places experimentation above all and never ever sells itself to a page full of names and initials!

The scientific process has been subjugated by institutions that thrive on restricting access. Cronyism is massive, peer review is corrupted, and the uncredentialed are treated like lepers. These institutions sit atop the corpse of the Enlightenment.

Corporatized Art

The arts – music, film, painting, sculpture – are not widgets. They are immensely more important than that, forming minds and cultures in deep ways.

How to pay the artist (singer, writer, whatever) has long been a problem and remains one. Hopefully a good answer arises at some point. Until then, seeking profit by dumbing down every art form is simply degrading.

The corporations that now control music and film have bastardized art for money. I’m not ready to jail them and I certainly don’t think the state could do a better job, but I am willing to say that they have disgraced art. Have you ever wondered why elegance is gone? Why loudness and drunkenness are treated as virtues?

The State

Being that it forcibly skims half of the West’s production every year, given that it punishes all who do not obey it, and given that its laws are for sale to the highest bidders, the number one destroyer of Western civilization is the state. Hands down. Think of what people could do for their children and grandchildren with twice as much money.

And don’t get me started on enforced charity, the victim culture, “you didn’t build that,” and “it takes a village.” I don’t like to swear in print.

A Final Point

I could go on, but this is a column, not a treatise. My final point is this:

None of the above are transmitting civilization, even if some of them once did. They are tools for reaping the masses, and we need to leave them behind. But far more importantly, we need to build methods and systems that will transmit Western civilization.

The authentic Western virtues – cooperation, initiative, creativity, curiosity, co-dominance, and real justice (not merely a form thereof) – are necessary for a prosperous humanity, and the institutions of our time have flamboyantly failed.

It’s time to start building afresh.

* * * * *

A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.

  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.

  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.

  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

Get it at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)


* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg

20 thoughts on “Sucking the Blood of a Declining Civilization”

  1. Many of the men (there were no women) who signed the Declaration and the Constitution were not Christians, they were Deists. They didn’t attempt to dismember anything, Thomas Paine and his fellow Deists only sought to correct the same problem among theologians as has occurred among “educators”, revisionism.
    Since the bible was not written in english, which didn’t exist at the time, it had to be translated, which, being largely impossible, was replaced with transliteration, which is what much of propaganda relies upon. Thomas Paine would have produced a better translation of the bible than King James did, if he’d had the mindset and the grasp of the original source matter and a comprehension of the source languages.
    Dictionaries have gotten a bad rap since Webster. They have come to be used to define language rather than report the meaning of words as they are used contemporaneously. Much the same can be said about public education. Since many of our fellow “citizens” get their latter day education from the television, and are functionally illiterate, they are victims to everything that television “programming” provides them.
    While I, too, am an optimist about the prospects of saving the republic, we would have to begin by restoring the republics’ foundations in the minds of those who lack that at the same time that they lack awareness of what they lack. It is difficult to use that which can only be believed in faith to replace that which the physical and philosophical artifacts still exist for those who would apply them, if they’d been told, accurately, about them.
    Continuation of civilization requires mentoring and apprenticeship more than proselytizing and conversion.
    LIke Samuel Clemens said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.” Those who know not the name Samuel Clemens are among the uninformed.
    I’ll give my favorite president the final word: “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” (Thomas Jefferson, via correct attribution from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.)

    1. To clarify very briefly:
      – I was not referring to Paine, Jefferson, et al when referring to anti-religionists. I was thinking more of the Dawkins crowd.
      – I don’t think the current US republic can be saved. There is far too much corrupt inertia in that system.
      – On information, I could hardly agree more. 🙂

      1. The current American government isn’t worth keeping, nor is it a republic or even a detestable democracy. It is a purified RICO and has to be defeated and removed from the world stage before anything better can replace it.
        If those of us who want to restore the original republic really wanted to, we’d have to wage an all-out war against what replaced it, and that is as treasonous as the founders of the republic were to the King.
        We could start out by replacing the national anthem with Silent Running from Mike and the Mechanics.

      2. People do not comprehend that the US government is not the Republic. The US government is a democracy. It’s the government of Washington, D.C., and the insular Possessions, not of the 50 states.
        The article linked below has the evidence to support that claim. Read more than just what the article is about. Read between the lines, and apply it to everything that the US government is doing.

      3. I don’t agree that the “Dawkins crowd” is on a crusade against religion. Although I understand that religionists may feel that way since they tend to expect everyone to bow their head in deference and speak in hushed, respectful tones when people speak of their god and expect others to be, at all cost, respectful. They’ve had it their way for so long. The “Dawkins crowd” refuses to do so and I applaud them for that. But unlike religionists they don’t have signs plastered everywhere in public proclaiming their beliefs and opinions. They don’t get tax breaks for their lack of a church. Nor do they seek to enforce their views upon the religious in ways that the religious do upon everyone – trying to have creationism taught as science, for instance. And what’s wrong with some healthy debate? What they seek to replace it with is reason instead of wishful and magical thinking. So, it seems even you have a lopsided view and persecution complex regarding religion.

        1. Bruce, the militant atheist crowd seeks to slash and burn, not to build. THAT is my objection. And I complain about religions that do the same.
          I used to have a standing offer to publish any atheist book that told me how atheism would make my life better… I never got a submission.

          1. What?! Who have been the ones who “burned” others throughout time? Literally. Books AND bodies. The “militant atheist crowd”, a term, by the way, that I don’t think is apt for Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., is not trying to insert evolution into church documents just trying to keep believers from inserting it into science. Simply asking “where’s the evidence” for God is not slashing and burning is it?
            And the apparent fact that you have not run across any atheist books that you find uplifting is an indictment more of your reading experience than of atheism isn’t it? There is no need to submit for publishing, there are already many published.
            Consider just this: the knowledge that there is no cosmic dictator observing your every wish, thought, and action is liberating to many, myself included.
            The apparent contrasting idea that the Bible is a book that would make your life better baffles me. It never had that effect on me. Sure, priests and preachers know to censor out the ugly and emphasize the pretty in their sermons, but all the blood lust and superstition in the OT and all the hellfire and superstition in the NT leaves me cold.

    2. “Many of the men (there were no women) who signed the Declaration and the Constitution were not Christians, they were Deists.”
      I stopped reading there. A common myth spread for the atheistic leaning simpleton. Read a Jefferson biography.

      1. I’ve read several in addition to much of what he and Paine wrote, and their writing style and content are similar enough for them to have been ghost writers of each other. A deist is not an atheist is not a deist. Just because a Deist doesn’t believe in the Christian god doesn’t meant that they don’t believe in a superior consciousness, such as Jesus Christ was. Have you read Age of Reason?

        1. Deists don’t believe in a superior consciousness, and certainly not one “such as J.C. was”. They believe that though the universe may have been created by “God” that God does not maintain “management” of it. In the Age of Reason, in which Paine eviscerated the Bible and it’s absurd mythology and contradictions, that was made fairly clear. And Jefferson wrote his version of the Bible wherein he removed superstition and miracle. So I wonder what your point was asking “have you read the Age of Reason”? I wonder if you have?

          1. Why don’t you say why you think they did if they did? Where is it inserted? Maybe the uncontracted form, “Nature is God”, is what they meant. I’m not sure what you imply it must mean.

          2. Yes, I know it’s in the DoI. The question is what significance do you attribute to it? Why did you bring it up? I think it’s a fairly clear reference to Jefferson’s Deist beliefs. So I don’t find it all that interesting or revealing of anything special or surprising.

          3. You were the one who couldn’t find it until you just admitted that you knew it was there. If you are so disinterested that you will play ignorant, I’m not sure why you are even here.

          4. Give me a break. But I’ll try to break through the cement one more time. Although I wonder at this point why I care. The question is what significance do you attribute to it? Why did you bring it up?
            Now, let me guess, you’ll ask what “it” is.

  2. I agree with nearly all of your column; the lack of civility, the lowered educational standards, the corruption in corporations and government, the depravity of current art. However, I remember being a kid in the 1950s when moms stayed home to raise their children; that sort of woman has been ridiculed by our media for decades! I believe that is a big part of why women entered the work force along with economics. In the 1950s families had one car, smaller homes, no microwave, no dishwasher, no cable tv, no internet, no Netflix, and a much lower standard of living. Having two wage earners allowed people to have more. In other words, people sold out on their kids, and sold out their morality, in order to have MORE STUFF.

  3. This is nothing new…there’s nothing new under the sun. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Romans, in the midst of enjoying their bread and circuses, never thought that in a million years their empire would come to an end. Frank Chodorov clued in anyone who cared to listen back in 1959. The decay of moral and cultural values is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself, but you were correct in naming the culprit: the State.
    “The imperviousness of economic law to political law is shown in this historic fact: in the long run every State collapses, frequently disappears altogether and becomes an archeological curio. Every collapse of which we have sufficient evidence was preceded by the same course of events. The State, in its insatiable lust for power, increasingly intensified its encroachments on the economy of the nation, causing a consequent decline of interest in production, until at long last the subsistence level was reached and not enough above that was produced to maintain the State in the condition to which it had been accustomed. It was not economically able to meet the strain of some immediate circumstance, like war, and succumbed. Preceding that event, the economy of Society, on which State power rests, had deteriorated, and with that deterioration came a letdown in moral and cultural values; men “did not care.” That is, Society collapsed and drew the State down with it. There is no way for the State to avoid this consequence—except, of course, to abandon its interventions in the economic life of the people it controls, which its inherent avarice for power will not let it do.” – Frank Chodorov, “The Rise and Fall of Society”

Comments are closed.