Is the west dying?

Better than left wing fear mongering about f*cking white males being LITERALLY hitler desu

No reasonable recovery. There are still both unconventional and unreasonable avenues.

Yes. The real question is "does it matter?". If another culture can replace ours, then it's clearly a superior culture. Our priority should be the survival and progress of humanity.

>he doesn't know about mass transit

Best of both worlds, plus free exposure treatment for your social phobia

Literally anything that happens for the first time is unprecedented. Nuclear weaponry was unprecedented, airplanes were unprecedented, the black plague was unprecedented, the fall of Rome was unprecedented, writing was unprecedented, harnessing fire was unprecedented.

We've been distracted from our goals and who we are for a while now. It seems like we're in a climax of black/minority praise, arts, overt liberalism, promiscuity in the west.

With Trump's victory this week I believe the pendulum is swinging the other way. 2016 has been such a wacky year because things are in flux.

It's all up to the young people. I hope western values become idolized by the young once again because whatever we're idolizong now is garbage.

>then it's clearly a superior culture
That assumes intert cultures. If we commit suicide then our replacement has no relation in terms of qaulity. Further, we could just as easily change to address our failings. There is no requirement to be replaced (externally at least).

Nice meme, middle-class people and University types tend to be avid readers, NEETS don't do these things.

no it's basically taken over the entire planet I mean wtf are you even on about "dying"? how? in what way? by what metric? by what definition? fuck off, retard.

>If we commit suicide then our replacement has no relation in terms of quality
Committing suicide is a sign of a failure of the culture. That the other cultures aren't committing suicide means they lack such a critical flaw.

>Further, we could just as easily change to address our failings.
It could, but until it's actually done, it's all talk.

You're equating a car that has run out of gas to a billy cart. Just because something breaks doesn't make it inferior to something that hasn't. Were it two cars with similar performance and one broke your reasoning would be valid, however as I said: if we suicide then ANYONE could feasibly take over. That doesn't make them inherently better. Further it doesn't exclude them from having their own fatal flaws that will kill them over time. Your logic is flawed.

>all talk
So is the death of the west friendo.

this culture based world view is bullshit
culture as it is predominantly is an abstract marxist fabrication to reconcile the lie of the equality of human races with the observed dissonant reality
if whites are supplanted white culture is no longer possible

>That doesn't make them inherently better.
It means they were resilient enough not to kill themselves. A single T-rex could kill a single ant in an instant, yet look at which showed up first and look at which is still alive. "Staying" is also a measure of the value of a culture.

> Further it doesn't exclude them from having their own fatal flaws that will kill them over time.
No it doesn't, but it doesn't mean they necessarily have those flaws either. Everything is speculation until it's all said and done.

>So is the death of the west friendo.
Which is half my point. You don't know until it's over, but a culture is never completely devoid of responsibility for its own collapse. If the west does collapse due to suicide, its own changing sensibilities towards itself can easily be attributed as an aspect of its fall.

*predominantly understood

This won't affect Western culture all that much

>It means they were resilient enough not to kill themselves
This is based on the warrant that they've been around as long as the culture they're replacing. I don't think a fresh culture not killing itself is an achievement.
Dinosaurs died environmentally, so to might an ant. Were the water line to rise and exterminate most ants would you then start to praise a fish? When do you divorce the virtue of a culture from the nature of its surroundings?

Without a European race there can be no European culture. If you believe all human races are the same your a fucking idiot.
Do you seriously believe sub saharan Africans with an average iq of 70 can support western civilization in a meaningful way? I'm sorry but your fucking delusional.
You need to switch your world view to a race based one and not a culture based one.

Can you actually back this statement. You credit it to being based on explaining racial difference and yet there are multiple cultures within races.

I don't think that it's right to say it is no longer possible. It could still be emulated. You could keep rap alive in America if you sent all of its black popualtion to africa, despite that music being part of that demographics culture.

Depending on how we define culture you could be right or wrong.

>"Staying" is also a measure

Then you should jerk off to Australian aborigines and talk shit about nazis. But somehow I never see that from you decline-and-fall guys, weird, I wonder who could be behind it.

This also assumes that races are inert. By the virtue of them beind a result of adaption, we know that they aren't. Feasibly a shallow emulation of western ideals and culture would, given dedication and sufficient time, result in a similar breeding practice and genetic preference.
They wouldn't be european but they would forcefully selected for the key genetic attribites required to function within that culture.

Both systems are valid and are mutually influential on each other. Ideas affect genes and genes ideas.

>Were the water line to rise and exterminate most ants would you then start to praise a fish?
I wouldn't "praise" them necessarily, but I would acknowledge it as superior at that moment. All life on earth has a common ancestor, and so each organism is linked one way or another. That the fish survived shows that the evolutionary track that it and all its ancestors took ended up standing the test of time longer than ants. Looking at it on purely a species by species basis would be stupid because that would ignore the fundamentals on how that species began to exist in the first place, as well as the trials that its predecessors had to undergo so that it could exist.

Human culture is similar. Go far back enough and we are all descended from the same group of people, and thus the same culture. One way or another, all cultures grew from this culture. If one culture falls without a trace, whether from something like suicide or anything else, then the "path" that that line of human culture took was factually fatally flawed. Whatever specific culture that supplants it might not be as old singularly speaking, but there is thousands upon thousands of years of history that led to the creation of such a culture, same as the thousands of years that led to the creation of "Western" culture. Life and human culture alike are constantly in flux, and you can't take a simple snap shot of a single point and time and act like you aren't ignoring the majority of the situation's inner workings by not looking at the grander picture.

Perfect example, american blacks have been inculcated in the highest form of white culture for 150 years and are still acting like niggers. Imagine the mental gymnastics required to explain that with a culture based world view, its like trying to explain the movements of the planets while assuming the earth is stationary. It's like trying to imagine how Santa Clause defies light-speed. He isn't real, don't try to build a web of lies. This pattern of blacks behaving as they are biologically destined to is replicated all across the globe universally and there are solid evolutionary justifications for their genetic pre-disposition. I suggest you read the research of Dr. Phillipe Rushton.

Nazi culture isn't completely dead though. It's weaker than it was in the 30s, but it hasn't hopelessly collapsed. It could very well make a resurgence. Something like Babylonian culture is never truly coming back.

The IQ difference between black Britons and white Britons is 8 points.

You can replace every single European with a pureblooded African raised in Europe, and civilization will still prosper.

An iq of 70-80 today is around equivalent to an iq of 90-100 in the 1940s. So yes, I'd imagine any group of people with than level of iq could technically carry the mantle of western culture, as people in the west were capable of doing so 70 years ago.

One of the biggest problems with saying "the West is dying" is that, generally speaking, whenever a great empire is close to falling, the general culture inside of said empire will have a "we'll survive, we're strong kind of environment, while when they were on top of the (known) world, they would say "a great enemy is upon us! We're going to fall!"

But who is "the general culture" here? The media flip-flops about it, the Left claims the West is strong while the Right preaches it's weak; you in this place are saying it's dying, while somebody else here is saying it's not.

Essentially, we are uncertain and us living in this time period can tell fuck all about this.

>highest form of white culture
>American
Please, don't flatter yourselves. Most powerful/influential societally sure but not culturally. Moving on:

>biologically destined
No such thing. Conditioned, yes. Destined, no. Naturally a purely cultural model is not capable of explaining the nature of things but I do not believe that a purely racial one is appropriate either. Further the interactions of ideology within culture and race is important as well.

I will read it if you have an easy link. I've got a reading list that's already stupidly long and I will put it off otherwise.

This isn't exactly right. You will praise the fish for living the longest but not the ant, yes? Well what if that fish was recently adapted to hotter climates whereas the ant roamed the lands without the need for major alteration for millennia?
Either you see all animals as the continuation of the one stream of adaption or you have to specifically define their differentiation.

That was disproven in this study:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Why would you think groups seperated for tens of thousands of years would somehow turn out the same?
I have to appeal to your reason, because you will dismiss the hard science I present as racist because of its conclusions.
Blacks have been measures to have less brain tissue and smaller skulls.
Also that scenario you present is impossible, negros in Europe will ghettoize until these ghettos overrun the native society. Why would you think racial supplantion would occur any other way, thats the pattern occuring in Europe.
Blacks have been in America for hundreds of years for gods sakes and keep their black "culture" and still live in their own communities.
Assimilation assumes no inert racial differences and that culture is the only barrier.
If your too much of a narcissist to accept these hard truths because you think your superior to me then fuck off, I'm interested in the truth regardless of how difficult it is to swallow. Acknowledging this, taking the redpill is not for the faint of heart. You will be an apostate! It is freeing however.

I view the world in biological realities, you view it in fabricated abstractions.

...

>a European race

What did he mean by this statement?

You really think Europeans will be replaced wholesale by tribesmen from the Congo?

Or partially misceginated by Arabs with an iq of 80. Same thing fundamentally, we're talking degrees.

>Well what if that fish was recently adapted to hotter climates whereas the ant roamed the lands without the need for major alteration for millennia?
That doesn't change the results. If the heat death of the universe occurs, and by then every form of life except for single celled organisms had gone extinct long before then, I'd tell you that being multicellular was a mistake.

>Either you see all animals as the continuation of the one stream of adaption or you have to specifically define their differentiation.
I'm looking at it as a continues stream with multiple tributaries. If one tributary dries up and the others don't, then that tributary simply wasn't good enough to stand through the continuously changing state of the universe around it. That's what survival of the fittest means. Nothing is "more evolved" than something else if they exist at the same time, no matter how complex its workings may or may not be.

What if it was through the environmental interactions of a dead tributary that a new one was able to develop. Is the credit wholly awarded to the tributary that survived or the causal process that facilitated its existance?

Sort of.
slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/
TL;DR: "Western" culture / civilization is already dead. What we call Western culture should really be called universal culture, much like "Western medicine" is really just universal medicine, i.e. the medicine that actually works. Likewise so-called Western culture, really universal culture, is just the culture that works for an industrial society. And just like all medicine tends toward universal medicine because people want to be healthy and that's the shit that works while ground up rhino horn doesn't, so does all culture in industrialized societies tend toward the universal culture, because people want to be wealthy and free. Universal culture has already almost completely displaced actual traditional Western culture and is currently in the process of consuming other cultures as the rest of the world catches up to us.

>universal medicine
>universal culture
Kek, conventional perhaps. Thing is, certain groups and intersts set those conventions. Groups that even now identify as the west.
>universal culture
That's almost as funny as my socio-linguistics teacher claiming that English will be an 'asian' language not a 'western one' within the century.
You cunts make me sick.

Depends on how you look at it, and/or the precise details that lead the creation of the new tributary. In one way you could see the new tributary as the "successor" to the old tributary, and thus the the old tributary wouldn't be a "mistake" because its death wasn't truly the end of its legacy. However, if the details surrounding the creation of the new tributary are more akin to a parasite or a vulture picking at the "remains" of the old tributary to stay alive, and thus had its own separate line that lead to its own personal creation, then I wouldn't say that it was a "carrying the mantle" of the dead tributary, but rather developed a method that allowed it to capitalize on the death of the old tributary without being linked to it.

>Imagine the mental gymnastics required to explain that with a culture based world view.

more like

"Im too lazy to do that so I'll go for le iq meme"

But if the elements that it developed while captialising on another species were the ones that supported it through other environmental changes then it would still be directly the result of another species and not in full the effect of the living tributary. Aren't you personifying adaption excessively?

That study exactly proves his point

The IQ gap still exists but is massively shrunk by different environments

If European culture is as important as your post implies, then other cultures would begin incorporating it into their own.

They already have.

I only care if I'm dying, desu. Provided I'm free to be me, I have no qualms.

If I can tell edgy racist jokes with my black friends and they can laugh and engage in the bantz I see no problems.

If I can have fun and actually debate at my UNI, I see no problems.

If I can openly criticise other people's ideologies, then I see no problems either.

>But if the elements that it developed while captialising on another species were the ones that supported it through other environmental changes then it would still be directly the result of another species and not in full the effect of the living tributary.
The key here is the capitalization. Just because a species dies doesn't mean that EVERYTHING about it was flawed, just that it had a certain flaw the killed it. If another species can adapt the aspects of the dead one without incorporating that fatal flaw, that doesn't prove that the flaw that killed the old species wasn't still a mistake, just that it needed to be adjusted in a way that the old species never acquired the capacity to do.

>Aren't you personifying adaption excessively?
I'm using more personal vocabulary to get my point across. That's why I'm using quotes around the more personified aspects of what I'm saying. I don't actually believe that "carrying the mantle" is something inherent to nature. I'm just used that terminology because I thought it'd be easier to understand.

could it have been prenatal factors
could it have been early postnatal factors
could it have been looking different from your parents, especially since a native american(read asian) has a lower iq also

hmmmmmm, i guess we'll never know until IQ genes and not just correlations are discovered

and i mean gene -> protein -> function, not some psychology bs

I don't mean reverse engineering features from it I mean having adapted as a result of interaction with it. An eagle assisting in weeding out slow rabbits and so on. Naturally that's a simplistic example but some species have rather unique interactions which results in extaordinary traits for one or both of them. If we assume that one of the two dies and the other goes on to use the, now no longer directly adaptive, traits to survive, it could be said it was a direct causal result of the other species as much as it was the surviving species for having adapted in that way.
The trait is unique to that interspecies interaction, not a result of the environmental change that destroyed the competing species (among others).

> An eagle assisting in weeding out slow rabbits and so on. Naturally that's a simplistic example but some species have rather unique interactions which results in extaordinary traits for one or both of them.
You mean like Whites weeding out dumb Jews?

If that's how you want to spin it, sure.

Also note the opposite effect for blacks. Whites bred the stupid, submissive ones as slaves and hunted down the smart ones that tried to escape.

>dumb Jews
Jews are a glorious race and it's history's greatest tragedy that Europeans were too stupid to embrace them.

Except based Poland of course.

>The trait is unique to that interspecies interaction, not a result of the environmental change that destroyed the competing species (among others).
Which I acknowledge. What I'm saying is that that interspecies adaptation is not the defining aspect of the species. If one species was able to go on living with that adaptation, and the other wasn't, that means that the species that went on living had something else that allowed it to go on that the other didn't. That they weren't both able to live simply shows that that trait they adapted together (as they adapted it) wasn't the defining aspect of survival in their situation, otherwise they would have both died. One thing making use of a trait while another can't shows that the flaw lies not in the trait, but rather in either how dead species utilized said trait, or in how the surviving species had another trait that allowed it to survive while still retaining the "symbiotic" trait in a way that the dead species could not.

Definitely.

That assumes a symetrical trait. Most interactions create asymetrical traits. One iteration say, resistance to toxin could later become more effective to the species outside of its development between competing species, whereas in another senario of environmental change (unrelated to the interspecies interaction) the one with a highly developed toxin might be favoured.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
>could later become more effective to the species outside of its development between competing species
What do you mean by this? Forgive me if it's obvious to everyone else and I'm just too dense to get it.

No, I said it in a round about way. Let me rephrase:

Species A interacts with species B either territorially or predaciously
Species A develops trait 1 Species B develops trait 2
Interaction between A and B increase the effectiveness and natural preference towards traits 1 and 2 as well as behaviours surrounding their usage

EVENT HAPPENS- new predator or environmental change

All species are adapting or dying
Trait 1 (or 2) gives species A (or B) and advantage not only over their rival but others and secures their survival through the event.

No other species would or could naturally develop trait 1 (or 2) as a reaction to the event.

As such it was the interaction of both A and B and the development of asymmetric traits that allowed A (or B) to survive and flourish in an otherwise damning situation.

Thanks, I get it now. Well, in spite of that, I'll once again say that it's the results that matter. If trait 1 allowed species A to survive, but trait 2 did not allow species B to survive, then I'd say that trait 1 was still more important. While it's true that species A could not have adapted trait 1 without interactions with species B, that doesn't change the fact that species A was still able to survive and species B wasn't. They "worked together" in a manner of speaking, but working together does not automatically mean the results will be equally fruitful. Basically the existence of species B was necessary for species A to live, but that doesn't mean that species wasn't still the flawed specimen in this hypothetical situation.

I'm not forgiving the weakness of species B but if you see species A as a continuation of a prior triburaty purely because its species and orgins come from it then why not see them as a continuation of B which has shaped their development as much or more in terms of providing them with a means of survival.

This. The "wesT" still owns everything.

Dumb faggot Yo really thing a mass scale mixing will occur? Get real and stop feeding your delusions.

>That's almost as funny as my socio-linguistics teacher claiming that English will be an 'asian' language not a 'western one' within the century.

IT will be if most changes to the English language come from Asia or Asian influences.

Not really.

>implying their little languages aren't being subsumed and their cultures forced to recognise our mighty girth

Lol no. People still believe the slave breeding myth or make up reasons why Blacks are "x" because of some meme explanation?

Because they aren't really descended from species B so much as they are a product of species B's actions. The credit of species A's survival is not so much due to species B as much as it is due to the members of species A who figured out a way to make something good of a bad situation. In this way species B serves the role of a force of nature more than it does the role of a predecessor. Breeds of dogs have certain humans to thank for their existence, but that doesn't make those dogs the children of those humans.

JIDF please

Nah. More like the idea of the "west" (Britain, America, the colonies, Germans, Nordics, the balkans, Southern europe etc.) is a brittle concept.

>birth rate
What is the "we" you speak of? What does tradition (and whose) have to do with anything? Aren't you interpreting things sentimentally? Phenomena like the economy are irrelevant to your speculations of historical cyclical models of demise.. Carthage isn't coming for you and analogies of this kind are pointless in today's world, simply because "the barbarians are coming!1" is not applicable in the 21st century.

Because what can be construed as barbarians in this modern setting the power difference between said barbarians and the "west" is massive.