Destroying History

[BjornP]

Oh, and LMFAO, listen to that History on Fire podcast episode about the three wars, and lo and behold, Bolelli seems to be "wrong" about these revolts being connected to the Dionysian cults too. Maybe you should go over to his site and lecture him with this nonsense as well.

Given your tendency to misunderstand what someone tells you, I doubt he's saying what you think he is, but I'll give it a listen.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, and LMFAO, listen to that History on Fire podcast episode about the three wars, and lo and behold, Bolelli seems to be "wrong" about these revolts being connected to the Dionysian cults too. Maybe you should go over to his site and lecture him with this nonsense as well.

Given your tendency to misunderstand what someone tells you, I doubt he's saying what you think he is, but I'll give it a listen.

Given your incapacity to actually read the historical texts you decide to lecture people on, I doubt you will listen to him either.

[BjornP]

You really can't admit when you are wrong even when history plainly contradicts you. It's really sad.

You should read the historians before you decide to lecture people on how to interpret them.

And I have read historians writing on Rome and sit through lectures by history professors specializing in Roman history. That's why I'm trying to explain a simple, simple fact to you that makes your analysis wrong. Not talking about that whole "foreign subversives can destroy your culture from within" argument, I agree with that bit. Just not about which historical examples you're supposed to use to prove that.

So, think of me "shitting all over" your rationalization, like fertilizer on barren soil. You may huff, puff, and project shit unto me now, but it's worth it if you learn a little about being critical about what you read, even, or especially if it's something (you think) agrees with you. Your pride wants to refuse my arguments, but I just know your reason be HUUUUNGRYYY!

[Speaker to Animals]

What Livy described the Bacchanalia of doing was pretty explicit, Bjorn. They absolved class and gender distinctions. All forms of sexual degeneracy were practiced. Their only maxim was that nothing was impermissible.

The Bacchanalia was a morally degenerate movement that opposed morality itself; their only virtue being the lack of virtue.

Which is the most similar Roman movement to SJWs that you will find.

Now go on your date with the shovel.

[BjornP]

Oh, and LMFAO, listen to that History on Fire podcast episode about the three wars, and lo and behold, Bolelli seems to be "wrong" about these revolts being connected to the Dionysian cults too. Maybe you should go over to his site and lecture him with this nonsense as well.

Given your tendency to misunderstand what someone tells you, I doubt he's saying what you think he is, but I'll give it a listen.

Given your incapacity to actually read the historical texts you decide to lecture people on, I doubt you will listen to him either.

Oooooh burn! Not accepting a historical source as being all-knowing about the thing he writes about = "Not actually reading the text".

[Speaker to Animals]

Livy <-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Bjorn

[BjornP]

What Livy described the Bacchanalia of doing was pretty explicit, Bjorn. They absolved class and gender distinctions. All forms of sexual degeneracy were practiced. Their only maxim was that nothing was impermissible.

The Bacchanalia was a morally degenerate movement that opposed morality itself; their only virtue being the lack of virtue.

Which is the most similar Roman movement to SJWs that you will find.

Now go on your date with the shovel.

According to Livy, it was, sure. And later on, the Bacchus cults were subject to Roman state control. Not abolished, simply regulated.

As for sexual degeneracy... you do know that Romans did not consider fucking a slave infidelity (unless you were a woman and the slave was male)? And that slaves were supposed to just do whatever the fuck their masters wanted...fucked? And it's not like they had age of consent for slave girls (or boys) either.

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/08/ro ... inia/97996

Sure, it's "the most similar". Which is not very similar at all. Livy's a conservative, and in a sense, a Puritan. That is, if Puritans were ok with fucking children as long as they're your slaves and they're not the "active" party.

I don't get why people feel a need to prove that their truths are historical. Marx does this with his "Urkommunismus" (ancient or original Communism), where he claimed that pre-historic man all lived like in the ideal post-state Communist utopia, or his idea that the "path" of history would eventually lead (back) to a Communist utopia.

I may disagree you on method, views, etc. when it comes to responses to SJW's, but not that they're a destructive force for culture, intellectual life and academia. That we easily agree on. As such, I think that by trying to link both your fight but more importantly THEIRS to some ancient, continuity, a historical force, you empower them and their feelings of import. It's like an open door invitation for them to pretend that Bacchus is really their guy.

[ssu]

Would be easier to break it down into bulleted arguments if you care to be charitable.

(1) I agree that one of the factors that leads to this condition is that people begin to feel like civilization is a raw deal for them. Where I disagree is that, in cases of degeneracy like this, those feelings have no legitimate basis in reality. The poorest American lives an incredible life compared to most humans who have ever lived. I would rather live on a fixed income in America today than as some noble in medieval Europe, bet that. I like my air conditioning, fire and police services, hospitals, computer, smart phones, internet, entertainment and comfort, thanks very much. The problem is that people take for granted what they have and become envious of what some others have more than them.

When society truly begins to break down and lots of people are truly disenfranchised from the system, what you will see rather than the degeneracy is people simply ignoring the central government and slowly becoming more parochial. This is what happened in Western Europe in the early middle ages. This idea that there will be a global system, in my opinion, is laughable given the obvious decline of our civilization. Maybe the next iteration of western civilization will be able to do it. Not sure. But our more immediate progeny are headed into another dark age of some kind where things are far more localized even though there likely still will be an internet and communication networks. Things are likely to become much more religious and traditional by the end of this century -- either because the area was overrun by traditional peoples like Muslims in your case, or because of the backlash to the degeneracy and the reformation of society as happened in previously.

(2) I disagree that fertility rates tank simply because of prosperity. Prosperity was increasing for a long time and it didn't affect the fertility rate. The fertility rate took a giant shit because of feminism, the pill, and the legalization of abortion. You are confounding variables in my opinion.

(3) You make a quip that our welfare system's insolvency due to the rise in degeneracy and corresponding fall in fertility rate is merely an "economic problem". That particular symptom is an economic problem, but the cause is moral degeneracy. Period. In America, we have killed off at least fifty million people who would otherwise have lived, worked, and hopefully contributed. God knows how much innovation we lost. But we can roughly calculate the impact on taxes and solvency of government. Demographers and economists go into this in detail in the documentary titled Demographic Winter.

(4) What defines degeneracy is not subjective at all. It is the moral regression of a people. Every civilization is founded upon a foundation of virtues and morals. It's possible to slowly change those over time, but what we are seeing today is not an attempt to transform the foundation of civilization, but to obliterate morality itself. The maxim of the SJW is that every form of sexual deviancy is permissible and the worst social crime is to express disapproval. They make a virtue out having none. That's moral degeneracy.

Some thoughts StA:

(1) It's true that a lot of those who think themselves as poor aren't in such a dire situation. And that people typically take granted all the services the public sector has given them. The clearest example is to think that the nation state is just a service (that you pay with taxes) and is similar to any other service you buy.

(2) Prosperity here means a lot of things. And what you are forgetting is the role of education and women being in the workforce. Having children is usually a thing that is planned. And when the woman is working too and for good income you need higher specialization (usually through education). And yes, women being in the workforce increases the economy a lot. The idea that it's morality, feminism or sexually deviancy that is fault simply puts what are very minor reasons in front of the major reasons. How many working families have 12 children with all put through Ivy League-universities to study?



(3) The reason that you spend far more that you earn is simply because you can. That's all thanks to the role of the US dollar. Thank Bretton Woods and the American GI's in WW2 that the Global economy is rigged in your favour. (Putin and the Chinese wouldn't want it to be this way, actually)

Besides, your fertility rate looks to be quite good compared to other countries (of course Nukedog isn't happy about the racial structure, but that's our nuke, fearing a white demographic genocide).

(4) So you argue that moral degeneracy is the reason for cultures to fall? Empires and nations in my view fall when they don't have the military capability to hold on to what they have. And the reason isn't because they have become soft. The reason is that their economy cannot anymore sustain a military to hold their posessions. Either their economy is not anymore competitive or they have run out of money or wealth to loot.

But I do get your point. In my view this kind SJW-thing that you say to be that "every form of sexual deviancy is permissible and the worst social crime is to express disapproval" is the symptom of excessive individualism. Over the top tolerance. Not only is this a pitfall of classic liberalism / libertarianism, but also the reason is that collectivist ideas suffered a bankruptcy because of totalitarian ideologies of 21st Century, communism and nazism. Hence any kind of collective thought, like servicing your country, can be ridiculed.

And of course when it comes to the perverts, well, they successfully could transform their whole question to a human rights issue.

[Speaker to Animals]

I missed your response. Will respond later.

I am guessing Bjorn listen to the first fifteen minutes of Bolelli's treatment of the Spartacan revolt based on the sudden quiet.


http://historyonfirepodcast.com/episode ... -spartacus

[Speaker to Animals]

Would be easier to break it down into bulleted arguments if you care to be charitable.

(1) I agree that one of the factors that leads to this condition is that people begin to feel like civilization is a raw deal for them. Where I disagree is that, in cases of degeneracy like this, those feelings have no legitimate basis in reality. The poorest American lives an incredible life compared to most humans who have ever lived. I would rather live on a fixed income in America today than as some noble in medieval Europe, bet that. I like my air conditioning, fire and police services, hospitals, computer, smart phones, internet, entertainment and comfort, thanks very much. The problem is that people take for granted what they have and become envious of what some others have more than them.

When society truly begins to break down and lots of people are truly disenfranchised from the system, what you will see rather than the degeneracy is people simply ignoring the central government and slowly becoming more parochial. This is what happened in Western Europe in the early middle ages. This idea that there will be a global system, in my opinion, is laughable given the obvious decline of our civilization. Maybe the next iteration of western civilization will be able to do it. Not sure. But our more immediate progeny are headed into another dark age of some kind where things are far more localized even though there likely still will be an internet and communication networks. Things are likely to become much more religious and traditional by the end of this century -- either because the area was overrun by traditional peoples like Muslims in your case, or because of the backlash to the degeneracy and the reformation of society as happened in previously.

(2) I disagree that fertility rates tank simply because of prosperity. Prosperity was increasing for a long time and it didn't affect the fertility rate. The fertility rate took a giant shit because of feminism, the pill, and the legalization of abortion. You are confounding variables in my opinion.

(3) You make a quip that our welfare system's insolvency due to the rise in degeneracy and corresponding fall in fertility rate is merely an "economic problem". That particular symptom is an economic problem, but the cause is moral degeneracy. Period. In America, we have killed off at least fifty million people who would otherwise have lived, worked, and hopefully contributed. God knows how much innovation we lost. But we can roughly calculate the impact on taxes and solvency of government. Demographers and economists go into this in detail in the documentary titled Demographic Winter.

(4) What defines degeneracy is not subjective at all. It is the moral regression of a people. Every civilization is founded upon a foundation of virtues and morals. It's possible to slowly change those over time, but what we are seeing today is not an attempt to transform the foundation of civilization, but to obliterate morality itself. The maxim of the SJW is that every form of sexual deviancy is permissible and the worst social crime is to express disapproval. They make a virtue out having none. That's moral degeneracy.

Some thoughts StA:

(1) It's true that a lot of those who think themselves as poor aren't in such a dire situation. And that people typically take granted all the services the public sector has given them. The clearest example is to think that the nation state is just a service (that you pay with taxes) and is similar to any other service you buy.

(2) Prosperity here means a lot of things. And what you are forgetting is the role of education and women being in the workforce. Having children is usually a thing that is planned. And when the woman is working too and for good income you need higher specialization (usually through education). And yes, women being in the workforce increases the economy a lot. The idea that it's morality, feminism or sexually deviancy that is fault simply puts what are very minor reasons in front of the major reasons. How many working families have 12 children with all put through Ivy League-universities to study?



(3) The reason that you spend far more that you earn is simply because you can. That's all thanks to the role of the US dollar. Thank Bretton Woods and the American GI's in WW2 that the Global economy is rigged in your favour. (Putin and the Chinese wouldn't want it to be this way, actually)

Besides, your fertility rate looks to be quite good compared to other countries (of course Nukedog isn't happy about the racial structure, but that's our nuke, fearing a white demographic genocide).

(4) So you argue that moral degeneracy is the reason for cultures to fall? Empires and nations in my view fall when they don't have the military capability to hold on to what they have. And the reason isn't because they have become soft. The reason is that their economy cannot anymore sustain a military to hold their posessions. Either their economy is not anymore competitive or they have run out of money or wealth to loot.

But I do get your point. In my view this kind SJW-thing that you say to be that "every form of sexual deviancy is permissible and the worst social crime is to express disapproval" is the symptom of excessive individualism. Over the top tolerance. Not only is this a pitfall of classic liberalism / libertarianism, but also the reason is that collectivist ideas suffered a bankruptcy because of totalitarian ideologies of 21st Century, communism and nazism. Hence any kind of collective thought, like servicing your country, can be ridiculed.

And of course when it comes to the perverts, well, they successfully could transform their whole question to a human rights issue.

(2) Having children is usually not planned at all. Before the twentieth century, children weren't planned at all. Ever. People got married, started having sex, and children came (usually to the tune of about 4-6 children per woman on average in a predominantly Protestant/Victorian society, and even higher in Catholic societies). We don't even really plan children today that much either. Most kids come along as an accident. "Planning" has become nothing more than euphamism for various forms of contraception and really for abortion most of all.

Furthermore, the same people who tell me with a straight face that "prosperity causes a decline in fertility rate" will in another context tell me that we have seen nothing but a decline in prosperity for the average American. The same people who say that the declining fertility rate is a sign of a prosperous society will later lament how horrible our economic circumstances have become, and they never seem to connect the two.

I reject the notion on the grounds that people making this claim confound variables. The twentieth century saw a rise in birth control and abortion as well as a rise in prosperity. Just because you have birth control and abortions doesn't mean you will be prosperous. We have exported those things to the third world and I don't see the third world joining the developing world any time soon.

(3) You missed the point. Welfare systems are becoming insolvent because our demographic pyramids are becoming columns and, by the end of the century, will become inverted pyramids. There will be more takers than contributors. Taxes will have to go really high or benefits will have to go really low. Most likely a combination of the two.

(4) No. I argue that moral degeneracy can cause a civilization to fall. Not that it's the reason for all of them to fall. My argument is that every civilizatio is built upon a shared moral foundation. We share common virtues and beliefs. Moral degeneracy is not some alternate belief system impinging on the original order. It's the lack thereof.

SJWs only virtue truly is in having none. That's not an alternative. That's just burning