the decline of a nation

This post is in response to Kerby Anderson’s post by the same title.

I would like to say at this point, that this post, unlike my regular posts, is halfway between a blog post and a scholarly article. Towards being scholarly, I would like at this very early stage to refer anyone interested in pursuing the matter further to look at the following works.

  1. Acemoglu D and Robinson J.A, Why Nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty (2012) Crown Publishers. Newyork
  2. Gibbon E, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1970)
  3. Gellner E, Nations and nationalism
  4. Ogot B, Kenyans, who are we
  5. Ohmae K and Guehenno J.M, The end of nation states

With that behind us, we can now look at the claims of Anderson. But before we do that, we need to agree on a few definitions.

In his work, Kenyans, who are we? Bethwell Ogot argues the state is a political term while the nation is a sociological concept. He goes further and notes that the model of the nation state developed in Europe in the C18 and C19. He identifies five theories of nations and nationalim

a. nationalism as a primordial phenomena based on rational or objectively valid criteria on the basis of which the world can be divided up into different national communities

b. nationalism as a subjective consciousness of the members of the community

c. nationalism as a functional requirement of the modern state

d. nationalism as a specific form of politics that groups use under certain historical circumstances in opposition to state; and finally

e. the Marxist interpretation of nationalim.

To these definitions and theories, I include civilization which defines as

an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry and government has been reached

Anderson writing about the US, argues the prognosis about the future of the state being bleak is correct but the causes he writes

The decline of this nation (just as the decline of every other nation) is due to spiritual factors

his central argument being

The political, economic, and social problems we encounter are the symptoms of the spiritual deterioration of a nation.

While he argues this thesis is supported by history, I am unconvinced this is the case. If we take for example the case of the Roman Empire, the fall did not come about as a spiritual matter. The Romans did not stop praying to their gods or offering sacrifices, but we see internal strife, over taxation and let’s just call it, bad leaders that exposed the empire to external attacks from the Arabs, Mongols and finally the rise of the Ottoman Turks that saw the fall of Constantinople.

He is right when he writes we simply don’t learn from history. When a just a few people continue to amass wealth while the rest of the mass wallow in poverty, there is bound to reach a critical point where the state, as a political entity, can no longer hold and revolution happens. This may not necessarily lead to the fragmentation of the nation but rather, a reordering of the nation state. For example the French Republic.

I am a little confused when he writes

History has shown that the average age of the great civilizations is around two hundred years.

is he treating the nation as a civilization? Can we logically talk about an American Civilization? Does it make sense to talk about American civilization in isolation of the milieu to which it belongs? Would the collapse of the US of A also mean the collapse of the civilization in which it is a part?

Anderson, without giving examples, argues civilizations go through ten stages in the life cycle, which funny enough, he says begin with bondage and end with bondage. Since details are scanty on the great African civilizations, I am not sure this argument can be fully demonstrated to be the case.

From here on, Anderson has left the purview of history and has become a preacher. We will indulge him either way. He writes

Christians can point to unusual times when revival has redirected the inexorable decline of a civilization. In the Old Testament, Jonah saw revival postpone God’s judgment of Nineveh. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther and John Calvin saw a Protestant Reformation transform Europe.

Two things need to be said here; it is common knowledge for the patrons of this great site that I am without the idea of god, god’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. With this in mind, I will ask further the theist, having said the bible stories cannot be treated of literally, what I am to make of the story of Jonah. Was in a fish? Is this story of Jonah an eyewitness account or divine inspiration? Can god inspire the scribes to write what didn’t happen? As for Martin Luther, we know from his thesis, among other things, he was tired of the corruption of the clergy among other things but that he was anti-Semitic as the come and Calvin killed Severus among other his great deeds. Whether this counts as revival, I know not.

When our interlocutor writes

But apart from God’s intervention, nations will decline and eventually pass off the scene. Much of the Old Testament records the history of the nation of Israel. It passed through these same stages and so will every country in the world.

I think he is being economical with the truth. When men were very religious, they killed witches, the children crusade of 1212. For this and other stories of great religious periods and what they did, read Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millenium. 

When he writes

 Only God’s Word endures forever. We should not put our trust in the things of this world for they are destined for destruction. Instead, we should put our faith in God and His word.

I am tempted to ask which god? The Vedas are older than the bible and as of this post, they are still in existence. The Muslim makes the same claim of his book and even goes further to insist the bible has been corrupted over the ages that it is no longer possible to separate the work of god or man. I will charitably ask Anderson to become a Muslim. He may find himself in Muslim hell.

While it is true that the place of the family in the nation or nation-state cannot be gainsaid, it would, in my view be a stretch to claim not praying is one of the reasons why nations collapse. If, as we defined above, the nation is a sociological construction, the fall of that nation cannot be in any good sense be claimed to have been brought about by secularism. History is short of examples, in fact, I think history has no examples of a period when the general population was atheistic. If there is information to the contrary, I am open to consider it.

I don’t know about you, but I have no idea where this

 Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and also freedom for sex outside marriage. Women also began to minimize having sex relations to conceive children, and the emphasis became sex for pleasure. Marriage laws were changed to make divorce easy.

happened in the distant past. In my country, divorce is not easy. To Anderson, if I am reading him correctly, women should not have sex if they intend to have pleasure. The woman is a breeder and that is all. Seeking wealth and economic independence is a forbidden. Engaging in any of these is bound to lead to the death of civilization. Women, now you know.

Since I am a patient man, I would like anyone to give evidence or links that I can look at where

Many children were unwanted, aborted, abandoned, molested, and undisciplined. The more undisciplined children became, the more social pressure there was not to have children. The breakdown of the home produced anarchy.

this was common place in the past and led to a collapse of a civilization. Or of a nation.

And while you are it, evidence for this too

Finally, unbelief in God became more complete, parental authority diminished, and ethical and moral principles disappeared, affecting the economy and government. Thus, by internal weakness and fragmentation the societies came apart. There was no way to save them except by a dictator who arose from within or by barbarians who invaded from without.

Anderson identifies ideas as being critical in the fall of nations. He says

But another potent but less perceptible force is the power of ideas.

what ideas are these, you may ask?

Today we live in a world where biblical absolutes are ignored, and unless we return to these biblical truths, our nation will continue to decline.


As you may have noticed, Anderson began his post by giving reasons why nations fail or collapse. The bible was codified in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the current era. In that time, the Sumerian empire had declined, Rome was in decline, whatever was left of the Greek empire must have been patches, the great Persian empire, Egyptian civilizations and many know that I don’t know were either ended or in last days of decline and no bible was involved. Beyond that, though, when he talks of bible absolutes, is he talking about not boiling a goat in its milk, killing your child for disobedience, burning witches or cheating your father in-law of his livestock? I am confused. Besides, when Europe was under the church, we had crusades, inquisitions and pogroms.

How did we arrive at the point where biblical absolutes are ignored? You must be wondering too. Wonder no more, he tells us

The first person is Charles Darwin (1809-1882). In 1859 he published The Origin of Species and later published The Descent of Man. His writings blurred the distinction between humans and animals since he taught that we are merely part of an evolutionary progression from lower forms of life. Darwinism, as it came to be called, not only affected the field of biology, but became the foundation for the fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

the next person in this line of offenders

The second person is Karl Marx (1818-1883). He and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto around 1850, and Marx devoted his life to writing about the demise of capitalism and coming of communism. He understood the importance of ideas.

also making an appearance is

The third person is Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

also starring

The fourth person is Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

and finally

A fifth person is John Dewey (1859-1952).

And what did these men do?

Ideas have consequences, and false ideas can bring down a nation. The theories of these five men are having devastating consequences in our nation and world. Unless we return to biblical absolutes, our nation will continue its decline.

I am very disappointed with this list. Before Darwin, there was Democritus a naturalist, Messlier who wrote against the gods, Spinoza who wrote on freedom of thought, Thomas Paine whose polemic, The Age Reason, must have contributed to the scholarship on the old testament, Marcion the heresiarch, Celsus among others whose works have been key to advancing free-thought and rights of wo/men.

Anderson’s final cause is spiritual. He argues that it is spiritual decline that made Rome susceptible to external attack. If this is the case, we would say it’s Christianizing of Rome where the blame should lay. As long as Rome was polytheistic, each person praying to their family gods and recognizing the state gods on feast days, things seem to have been well.

In conclusion, I am not sure whether Anderson set out to write on fall of nations or on decline of Christianity. In his world of thought, no other religion matters or is even mentioned. Anyone who is not a christian, per Anderson’s thesis, seems to be contributing to the decline of the nation. It matters little whether this person is fighting for a just world. That doesn’t count. To avert the decline, you must all be Christians. You cannot for a second think evolution may be true, that we are animals, just a different specie of animal. To be a humanist is criminal. To entertain for a moment that Moses, if he existed, could not have written the first five or is it four books of the Old Testament is to tempt fate. To think of a different economic system, is to demand that the gates of hell be kept open throughout awaiting your arrival and finally to argue, as Freud did, that we need to know ourselves is a sure way of hastening the decline and final collapse of the nation.

It is my last contention that Anderson is not happy with secularism nor with education. It does seem, if he had the say so, any education that doesn’t end in Christian indoctrination would be abolished. Which Christian cult will be in charge is a question for another day.




If Adam and Eve who were perfect, personally created and taught by God himself (according to the Bible) failed the Devil’s tests, where is the fairness in God expecting us to defeat the Devil especially when we are imperfect and never seen God?

I would go beyond this question and say that even Adam and Eve shouldn’t have been punished for their small transgression.

The chapter of genesis that talks about the fall of man says thus

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

The good book says this of the tree

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

from where I am justified in concluding that A&E were dumb as a dodo. They did not know shit. In fact, I would go as far as argue that the serpent knew more shit than the two combined which brings us to some very interesting questions

  1. why was the serpent created sly? did she just become sly?
  2. is knowledge bad? or was it just particular knowledge the gods were not interested in men having?

But back to the question, how are we, who if the story were story, several generations removed from Adam, who were not in the garden where, if god was present, his presence and goodness and whatever else one feels in the presence of a god could be felt, there was enough room and time for the serpent to be crafty, it is akin to asking a Nigerian who has is so far removed from the state to obey its directives.

This brings us to a final question, when the author of genesis writes that god saw that whatever she had created was good, what does this mean?

7 Deadly Worldviews That Threaten Christianity

Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit.
― Elbert Hubbard

Dear friends, I know you  have been wondering what these worldviews are, wonder no more, because Don McCullen has the answers.

If you are Gnostic, which, wait for it is

he rejection of God’s Word as not sufficient for us to know our true purpose or for life to have its ultimate meaning

it is important to remember though, that Gnosticism is

a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

The second worldview is rather confusing. Don calls it legalism but in all of it he is blaming Eve. He writes

This too comes from the Garden. While Gnosticism comes from the Devil, you can blame Eve for laying the ground work for legalism

You would think Don would have no problems with Dualism since it allows him to have a soul separate from body, but no. He tells us

 Overall Dualism views good and evil as part of the same framework, and not as separate concepts.

We need not say anything on his 4th worldview. Darwinism is well covered by The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

If you are a pragmatist, your worldview is a threat to Christianity. You wanna know why?

Pragmatism is “the first-born child of child of Darwinism.” It conflates situational ethics with situational shrewdness.

And how does pragmatism do this?

It allows people to change from what is truth and absolute to a truth they feel is right for themselves.

If ever you have the idea to combine two systems to come up with a better one or a different one, you are a threat to Christianity. Don tells us

However, Christians should never embrace syncretism as a way to get along. Syncretism is basically your “Co-exist” motto (with all of the religious symbols). Truth of the matter is that syncretism is at the heart of the matter, the very essence of intolerance while claiming to be otherwise.

And finally, all you secular humanists, we knew you wouldn’t be spared. So what does he say SH is,

A belief system that rejects virtually every single principle of God’s Word.

He tells us

 Secular humanism truly does bring the worst out of human beings, but yet they claim to be good

and why should this worry us? Well secular humanism will lead to collapse of society and when that happens, wait for it,

Right now, that big threat that will take over a society once Secular Humanism does it damage is Islam.

I don’t know about you, but I find this

That being large and centralized government. It has to be for them, but the problem with big government, it loves to impose itself on the infidels that oppose it, especially Christians.

quite confusing. In the US of A, the evangelicals are trying to take over government. I mean, Pence and his supporters believe he is there because that is what god wants. Methinks Don should choose a struggle.

But there is a solution to all these worldviews. Don suggests

If your able to take out a subscription to, please do it so that you can watch these seven programs. The audio podcasts are free but it is very important to watch and listen to both versions for they complement each other. It is not impossible go with one form without the other however.

And if you are a christian

Now more than ever, we need to move forward with our faith and be bold about it.

How will we you do this?

we really need to understand the Christian faith and show our neighbor that Christianity just does not work for certain people nor should it. It is a way of life, a way that promotes life and gives life not only in this world but the world to come.

Well, as for me and myself, we tell Don, get a life.

Random question

Generally no one takes offence when they are called tall. A few short people, and here I am not talking about Inspired1, but those with short tempers( you see what I did there), seem to take offence at being reminded of their vertical challenges.

Why do some people find it offensive to say someone is horizontally endowed? Or is facing horizontal challenges? That is, polite speak for fat.

But while we are here, what’s the threshold for fat? Do we use the medical descriptors of obese and overweight?

How would an atheist feel if scientists theoretically proved the existence of some higher conscience like God?

Scientists are not obsessed with proving stuff. Prove is not the purview of science but were that to say happen. I see no reason why it should be a problem for atheists.

What would be the nature of this higher intelligence?

Will it demand to be worshiped? Will it give reasons for making this demand?

How would the theist tell this particular existence is their god?

What if this existence is malevolent, will the theists still want to be associated with it?

What if this higher intelligence is just part of the universe?

What is my point here? That finding some existence slightly higher conscience [whatever that is] than humans does not advance the theists argument an iota.

Walking on eggshells

This post or rather set of questions have become very sensitive. One is almost always wrong, especially if they happen to be male. 

Mansplaining- is there a women corollary?

All men are trash- is there an opposing corollary?

All men are retards- is there a women corollary?

How are men to navigate the discussions around feminism without appearing to silence women’s voices, appearing to be guilty of mansplaining and so on? 

To put it differently, how are men to be feminists allies?

And finally, what is feminism?

What explains the idiocy of the liberal elite?

James Bartholomew writes in the Spectator UK, it is their education

Responding to his post becomes a little tricky because who a liberal elite changes with whom you ask. For the purposes of this discussion, this definition

is a pejorative term used to describe people who are politically left of centre, whose education had traditionally opened the doors to affluence and power and form a managerial elite.

will suffice.

For James, the world has only two groups; the liberal elite and ordinary people.  I don’t know where most of you are,ordinary people or elite, but we will let him talk to us.

To James, the liberal elite consider ordinary people a disappointment. And because of this, he offers to give us a pathology of this eliteness. He wonders, if they are educated, why are they so silly? And the answer, you guessed it, he says is their education. Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth

Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world. They have been indoctrinated with certain ideas.

and what are these ideas?

They have been taught that capitalism is inherently bad.

They have been led to believe is that governments make things better.

Environment-alism and recycling are taught as doctrine, rather than as subjects for discussion.

This next one is special,

One of the most important things schools and universities teach is that the students must never, under any circumstances, be suspected of racism.

James tells us also that a central tenet of this education

is the dogma that women have been oppressed, are oppressed and, for the future, there is no limit to what we must do to ensure they get to be in the same situation as men — having as many directorships and military medals and anything else one can think of.

Given the above, I don’t know who is to blame here, is it the élite, the ordinary people or James? I believe James is wrong on many fronts.

If he is right on the claim that the liberal élite are in managerial positions, it would be a contradiction for him to claim they believe capitalism is inherently bad while at the same time they are beneficiaries of it. And while at it, is James not saying here, then, that, the ordinary people have been brainwashed capitalism is inherently good even if they are daily screwed by it.

Those people who are opposed to government saying nothing of the military and prison systems which provide employment for the most number of people in almost all countries. Their problem seems only to be with government when it interferes in education or when it fails to ensure they have emergency services. I propose they choose a struggle, either they want government or they don’t.

Any rational person will admit that pollution has deleterious effect on our lives. Look at cities in China where smog interferes with visibility sometimes for days. Or the case of polluting our water bodies. And if the elite are the educated lot, I would believe, ordinary people see the effects of environmental degradation that they take measures to check it. Maybe James should tell us what his problem really is with regard to environmental consciousness.

I must confess at this point that I can’t comment on what is taught in your universities on racism. I am surprised there is an edict against it when for a long time, the white world has been racist in its relationship to others. I mean, Kant, Hegel, Hume and most of those greats provided the foundation material for slavery and colonialism.

His next beef on women is very interesting. Is he denying that women have faced structural challenges in society in their fight for equality and equity? Are there no barriers to their progress? That in most countries, even women reproductive health issues are the preserve of men? Whatever his beef is, I can’t tell at the moment.

Do ordinary people go to school? If you read James, the answer to this is almost no. How, for example, does one make sense of this

If a member of the elite, for example, finds him or herself reflecting that it is usually quite difficult to interest little girls in train sets and guns, they must squash that thought.

Is it really the case that if we made train sets and guns available to the girls, they would not like them? But anyway, who thinks guns are good plaything for kids?

Whilst Brexit and Trump are issues far removed from daily life, I don’t think what James calls the liberal elite is one homogeneous group that voted the same way in both UK and the US of A. Maybe a majority did, but at the moment I have no way of finding out.

It is my contention that he has not, in his attempt to disparage the liberal elites, demonstrated what the problem is with them. The few issues he has raised with their education, are in my view not the purview of a small elite but are matters of continuous debate in the spaces we inhabit.

Finally, when in his final paragraph he writes

They are virtuous. They know best. They are the chosen ones. They have only a token belief in democracy. They expect and intend to prevail.

is he doing this is the spokesperson of the ordinary people? Is the judgement the ordinary people have placed on the ‘others’ or is this James’ own views? Does this mean, on the contrary, that the ordinary people feel themselves virtuous, all knowing, the only chosen ones and they should prevail? I would assume the ordinary people are the majority and so I am unable to see how James thinks the small elite would trample on their wishes? unless he also implies this same elite controls political power too, which I don’t think is the case.

Or maybe, this is a first world problem and entirely don’t understand James for which case, I sincerely apologize.