Destroying History

[BjornP]

Word salad. Didn't read except the first sentence where you lied. I just quoted you denying that she was a priestess of Dionysus! Liar!

No "word salad" here. Just you understanding history like a Richard Dawkins...or a Ben Carson.

"I didn't read a word you said! But I clearly understand that you're lying about.. about something! You lying, lying LIAR! Shaaaaame!"

[Speaker to Animals]

I also wonder if the reason these things seem to begin with women who then corrupt the weaker males of the civilization is because women can grow resentful of the fact that it is men who build civilization; these women grow accustomed to all the benefits bestowed upon women, thereby coming to take all their privileges and rights for granted; and that maladaptation to complex society drives them to want to overturn the very society that gives them life and privilege.

Why would they ever demand we pretend that men and women are equal in all things, when it's obviously false, if not for the envy of men who can do things they cannot do?

On the other hand, with men, I think civilization is built, not as many contend as a means to secure wives through the amassing of resources and security, but because men rail against the biological order in which our lives are disposable and women enjoy so much privilege. If women ran the show, a small percentage of men would have rather large harems and most men would be disenfranchised from reproduction and sex. Civilization is a kind of truce between men in which each man gets one wife so that all men have an opportunity to reproduce and thus have a stake in the civilization. To build a civilization, men have to basically collectively limit the biological power of women to some extent by instituting some kind of marital system that for the most part gives each man a decent shot at reproduction. Otherwise, most men decide fuck it and become hunter-gatherers again, and the whole thing falls apart.

So consider what happens in these kinds of movements where women somehow manage to make sex freely available for all. A few men get a lot of women, and the other men end up turning gay or transgender because that's all that's left for them. You can see the entire social order just falling apart right now within the social justice circles as we live and breathe. We don't have to just look at the Bacchanalia.

If you really consider how much sex is involved in the creation of a civilization, a lot of this will make more sense to you, and you will see why this really is a kind of degeneration of civilization.

And once subverted, a lot of these people cannot be saved. After some guy is so psychologically damaged that he cuts his dick off, how does he admit to himself he allowed himself to be humiliated by degenerates who only wanted to destroy civilization, and him with it?

[C-Mag]

In any case, I have for a while now believed that most of our politics, and most of history in recent centuries, has amounted to a genetic struggle. Our political and social differences tend to be genetic and biological rather than genuinely intellectual. Weak men tend to want more mob-like and feminized ideologies because it's inherently a mating strategy on their part. Strong men prefer more independence and less collective control. But eventually, if the weak men prevail for long, the strong men will also collectivize and the helicopter rides will commence. It's like cause and effect.

I can see your points, and I'm in some agreement with you, many will reject the above, but it's very thoughtful. I also wonder if it's part of cyclical human trends. An empire, a culture(Western Culture) on it's way down. Once it's reached it's zenith, society no longer has the need for strong men, now weak men can enjoy relative security and women's roles change as well.

History tells us what makes a strong and resilient society. Modern Western Culture says, history was wrong, this is what works.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Sorry Bjorn, I don't think you should be voting in our elections either.

/snicker.

It's frightening how easy it apparently is to mislead people. They are more ready to believe obvious nonsense because the person on the other side of the debate is somebody they don't like. It's really amazing to see it sometimes.

This guy came in here with ZERO sources or evidence and was caught wrong repeatedly only to move goalposts around, lie, and even delete all the text of the first source Livy when responding.

I am really reconsidering this democracy idea. I am not sure it was the right way to go. Nergol makes a lot more sense now in hindsight.

Yeah, I've thought about it too. I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I'm long past getting to the point where I see universal franchise and direct democracy as social suicide. It's like putting your dog in the driver's seat, and getting on the freeway.

If your dog actually got your car from your house to the freeway, I don't think you'd have to worry much...

[SuburbanFarmer]

LMFAO

Bjorn has been nothing but wrong and lying from the start. I don't think any of you read his wordwalls either. I stopped reading them about two of his wordwall posts back after I realized they were nonsense. Why would I? Who reads that?

Let's recap what he did post up till that point:

I argued that the closest analog to SJWs in antiquity were the people involved in the various Bacchanalia cults. I provided the text of Livy describing their moral degeneracy, which really is little different from our own SJWs, though perhaps more severe with the murders (though Antifa seems destined to catch up with the Bacchanalia in the near future). I pointed out that at least two of the three servile wars were in fact fomented by the Bacchanalia, with the first one being led by an alleged prophet of Dionysus, and the third one (Spartican revolt) was led by the husband of a Dionysian priestess.

Bjorn came in here like a massive cunt shitting all over what I wrote with wordwall #1. Let's be clear that his first big complaint was that Spartacus had nothing to do with the Dionysian cults and his wife was not a priestess of Dionysus. I referred him back to the quoted text from Polybius (which he never bothered to read and probably still has not read) which explicitly stated this was the case. Then he started moving goal posts for the first time by saying OMG Polybius wasn't actually there!!! But neither was Bjorn, and Bjorn presented exactly ZERO sources or evidence to back himself up. Are we supposed to believe him that Polybius was wrong or lying but we are supposed to believe Bjorn instead? On faith in Bjorn? Fucking hell no. That guy is a fucking clown.

Let's not forget this entire debacle stems from my arguing that the closest match to SJWs in antiquity were these cultists. The Spartacan comments, though factually correct and backed up by sources, were merely an aside to show just where this kind of mentality can lead. Yet Bjorn disputes all of this, and when he gets cornered in his lies and nonsense, he deliberately tries to obfuscate with more lies about me using Polybius to describe the Bacchanalia (when I used Livy). When he replies to my posts using these texts, he actually deletes all the quotes of Livy and then responds as if I made it all up.

If you think that's convincing, then more power to you. I want to walk back enfranchisement because of shit like this.

Admits to not even reading his opponents arguments, because they're wordwalls. Responds with a word wall.

This place is the seat of madness.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, I read the first few word salads before I finally realized he wasn't posting anything worth anybody's time. I mean.. if you want to use Bjorn as a source on what happened in the Roman empire instead of Livy and Plutarch, then by all means, hop into that clown car and fly off the cliff of sanity with Bjorn.

It's hilarious that this guy is acting like an expert and the actual Romans are contradicting him, and fools like you think he has a good argument simply because you don't like me.

Nergol was right all along.

[C-Mag]

History by AntiFa

[Hastur]

I think Camille Paglia is on the same tack as STA. It's the late face of culture.

[ssu]

I
The reason the idea of moral degeneration as a cause of civilization collapse is so popular is that it's true. Every civilization is founded upon certain moral principles and social divisions of roles and responsibilities. While it's true people can want to transform those guiding principles to "progress" the society, it's also true that every now and again you see something totally different masquerading as a legitimate reform movement, when in reality it's nothing more than people revolting against morality itself.

People uphold moral principles and roles and responsibilities when they believe in the society and that belief is gained if the society works for them. It's as simple as that.

If you don't have financial troubles, you and your family manage well, it's safe to walk in the streets, public services work and so on, I guess your are totally OK with your government. It doesn't mean that you are a supporter of them, you might disagree with the leaders, but you won't pick up a rifle and put your life at stake. Because you have a lot to lose. True revolutions happen only when people feel they have absolutely nothing to lose. And why would they feel so? Not because they are immoral degenarate scum, but because the society and the government isn't functioning, the complex economic system isn't working. And when it's not working for you, it only works for somebody else, then that "social contract" is off. The functioning of the government and the whole system for the individual defines how the individual thinks about the society. Hence why the economy is so important.

Even now, with the moral degeneration we have experienced since the 1960s, we are paying a hefty price. Our fertility rates are tanked.

Have to point out that fertility rate tanks with prosperity. Universally has been so. Rich have less kids than the poor. It's not about religion or values like that. Those muslim countries that are better of than others are seeing dramatic fall in fertility rates.

Our social welfare systems are facing insolvency in a few generations if this continues.

Again something that is in the economic realm.

In any case, you better think long and hard about the consequences of not just modifying the founding moral principles of your civilization but adopting the Bacchanalia-like idea that the only virtue is that there exist no virtues, and the primary social sin is to express disapproval for the worst of the degeneracy.

You think the leftists are for that? What defines degenaracy is quite subjective. How many here have had sex outside marriage / before marriage? I think many if not all. What extreme debauchery!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Valid points appear.