NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey folks i came across a neat article a while back,I thought it was pretty interesting and I'd like you hear your thoughts on it.


"Canadian Society as we know it is about to face the crisis of the century:

The philosopher Hegel said, "What experience and history teach us is this: that people and government never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it."

As a young boy in high school, I resisted history taught by asking the question, who cares? “It is only today that matters.” Now as a senior citizen, I reflect on that question and respond with, “ I do, I care, history can more or less tell us where we are headed and what lies ahead for our children and our grandchildren.”

Today, it is evident that societies, nations, families are in trouble and are trying to seek the answers to where they are going and why. We have heard predictions about the end of the world just prior to year-end of 2000, while media elites are predicting the end of the family and the end of Christian religion.

Be not afraid for Christianity and the family will survive the current crisis and the current attacks by politics, media and the imposition of insidious laws from the judiciary. Why or how can I say that? Because many societies have come and gone and two things remained, battered but yet survived, one has been religion, the church and the spirituality of man, and with this, the survival of the family. It is the spiritual dimension and what God has written in the heart of man that gives rise to hope and with hope the family survives. Family became that fortress and home base for survival.

“Marriage and the Legal Recognition of other unions” public hearings by the Liberal government of the day in Canada in the year 2003 is but an indicator or a symptom of where we are as a society and symptomatic of what’s to come. It too, is a hallmark on how devious our system of government has become. On a scale one to ten and (one) being the birth of a society and (ten) being the death of that society. Canada would easily qualify for an (8.5). As will be later explained in this article.

See note RE: B.C., Utah Politicians ponder strategy to probe polygamists...Chronicle Herald, Dec 9, Pg A8, Halifax, NS

Kerby Anderson in his essay, “The Decline of a Nation”, points out, as does Will Durant in, “Lessons of History’’, that civilizations are born and then decline. The problem is not due to political, economic or social problems but spiritual factors. The symptoms are reflected in economics, political and social areas of society. Anderson goes on to point out that the average age of great civilizations is about 200 years. Russian, Harvard Sociologist Pitirim Sirokin has analyzed cultures spanning thousands of years on several continents and found that most political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriage and family were no longer accorded a premiere status. (The American Sex Revolution, 1956 pp 77-105.)

The declines were described in stages from:

* bondage to a spiritual faith, from which grows courage,
* from courage to liberty
* followed by abundance
* then comes selfishness
* followed by complacency to apathy
* final stages move from apathy to a moral decay
* from moral decay to dependence
* then finally from dependence to bondage.

Societies without exception [Roman, Greek, Moorish, Babylonian and Anglo-Saxon] flourished during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Inevitably, sexual morès would loosen and the societies would subsequently decline, only to rise again when they returned to more rigid sexual standards.

Carl Wilson, in his book “Our Dance Has Turned to Death”, interestingly describes the stages with modern day clarity and in terms of what is happening in today’s society.

· The first stage was when men ceased to lead their families in order to pursue wealth, politics or power.

· Material values began to dominate thought.

· Then came the change in men’s sexual desires and values. Men who were preoccupied with business, war or power neglected their wives sexually and /or became involved with lower class women or homosexuality. Ultimately, a double standard or morality developed.

· The fourth stage affected women, women at home and with children lost value and status. They were neglected and devalued. Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and also freedom for sex outside of marriage.

· Women began to minimize having sex relations to conceive children, and the emphasis became ‘sex for pleasure’.

· Marriage laws were changed to make divorce easy.

· Husbands and wives competed against each other for money, home leadership and the affection of their children.

· This resulted in hostility and frustration and possible homosexuality in the children.

· Many marriages ended in separation and divorce.

· The last stage was selfish individualism that grew and carried over into society, fragmenting it into smaller and smaller groups of loyalties.

The nation was weakened by this internal conflict.

Decrease in the birthrate produced an older population that was and had less ability to defend itself and less a will to do so, and were easily defeated.

Then came the dictator to save them and hence the cycle will begin to repeat itself.

If these models are true, or even close to reality, one should ask, where do we fit on either of these models, given the current debate and the changes in our society during the past 30 years?

You’ve often heard I’m sure, the statement:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It is worth noting that ‘Families ARE the foundation of a nation’, the societal microcosm - a reflection of the health of the larger society. When it crumbles, so will the nation. Families have been organized and have developed naturally for the protection of children, hence the future. It is this smaller community that makes up the larger community that ultimately form a nation for mutual governance for the common good. Therefore, the health of the family as a community is a concern for the health of the nation.

Self-governing people require a robust culture founded on marriage and family, which nurture the qualities that permit self-rule; deferred gratification, self-sacrifice, respect for kinship and law, and property rights. These qualities are founded upon sexual restraint, which permits people to pursue long-term interests, such as procreating and nurturing the next generation, and security for one’s children.

Any ‘de facto’ arrangement either politically or legally manifested will make marriage mute and families to become irrelevant. Once journeyed down this road there will be no turning back until we succumb to the last days of this society and prepare for the next. History is no fool and will again be repeated. Once heard from Dr. Paul Marx, “mother nature never gets mad, she gets even.”

I ask you Honorable Senators, leaders of our country and members of the court of public opinion as our last hope to stand firm on any matter that comes before you. Stand firmly against bills that will diminish in anyway the social support for the family, either by erosion or by making families mute and just as important the role of marriage and how it plays out in support of families."

Thoughts please, Be Blessed.

Canada can't end, were just like the song that never ends.:)

Canada ending would tip the scales. The world would plunge into darkness and dispare!

Canada ending would tip the scales. The world would plunge into darkness and dispare!


ah..yeah that be kinda cool. RAPTURE!!!

well i'm canadian so this concerns me.

What a load of moose dung.

If more sexual freedom, including gay people being afforded the same rights as straight people is destroying Canada, then hell, i'm going down with the ship.

Kind of a load of crap.

Rome did not fall because of sexual decadence of pageans. It fell because of over expansion and outside forces. Russian civilization fell again, at the behest of outside forces. China lasted for a hell of a long time without the super emphasis on family fidelity. Japan has a similar history.

The author is just looking for an excuse to attack what people are doing in the bedroom, another example of the slue of threads we have seen recently about the religious right going after abortion and sex at the same time.

It can be easily argued that the stages where the author is claiming the civilization grew were the stages of bondage. The people were in bondage to the moral ideals of a group of people. In effect, they were ruled by those who claimed they had moral superiority, the worst kind of bondage a society can have.

It can be also argued that Chistianity, not decadence is one of the major players in the fall of civlizations. It stuck the Russian civlization to being dependent on the Byzantines for support, it schismed Rome, it launched an undying war of hatred between the east and west (muslim vs christian) and it has created the whole moral values crowd of lunatics.

This study seems to only be concerned with Western civilizations... what about eastern?

My only question what western nation will rise to prominance in this new world order? Or will China because of its population "rule the world"???

If Canada and the US are going to end, it won't be because we aren't hateful bigots. :rolleyes:

I'm no historian, but I learned in school that Rome fell because of corruption in the government, and barbarians. Oh, and sex is supposed to be fun. That's we do it!

What a load of moose dung.

Dobbs, that's two posts of yours I've agreed with in 5 minutes.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10922178&postcount=31

...now cut that out, lest the apocolyse be upon us.

If Canada and the US are going to end, it won't be because we aren't hateful bigots. :rolleyes:Yep--it'll be be because we keep electing hateful bigots as our leaders. (Well, us in the US anyway.)

If Canada and the US are going to end, it won't be because we aren't hateful bigots. :rolleyes:
Yeah, it seems to me like an environmental catastrophe due to overpopulation is a much more likely doomsday scenario. Hell, we've already fucked up our environment pretty bad...

Yep--it'll be be because we keep electing hateful bigots as our leaders. (Well, us in the US anyway.)
Go Republicans!!

I'm no historian, but I learned in school that Rome fell because of corruption in the government, and barbarians. Oh, and sex is supposed to be fun. That's we do it!
Not to mention that Rome was fine for how long with pagans running the place but then once they adopt christianity, the empire falls...

Kind of a load of crap.

Rome did not fall because of sexual decadence of pageans. It fell because of over expansion and outside forces. Russian civilization fell again, at the behest of outside forces. China lasted for a hell of a long time without the super emphasis on family fidelity. Japan has a similar history.

The author is just looking for an excuse to attack what people are doing in the bedroom, another example of the slue of threads we have seen recently about the religious right going after abortion and sex at the same time.

It can be easily argued that the stages where the author is claiming the civilization grew were the stages of bondage. The people were in bondage to the moral ideals of a group of people. In effect, they were ruled by those who claimed they had moral superiority, the worst kind of bondage a society can have.

It can be also argued that Chistianity, not decadence is one of the major players in the fall of civlizations. It stuck the Russian civlization to being dependent on the Byzantines for support, it schismed Rome, it launched an undying war of hatred between the east and west (muslim vs christian) and it has created the whole moral values crowd of lunatics.

Outside forces??? like what?? the barbarians that were kept at bay for 200 years??? No it was the moral decay of the roman leadership. It was a string of 6 Crazy emperors Nero Caligula ect (most were gay, caligula dressed in drag for example) and an obssesion with orgies rampant in the streets to which women were treated as iteams of . Orgies were rampant and rome and old Romans who claimed thier society was turning Greek, were jailed or killed for challenging the emperor. Read the Works of CATO my friend to understand Rome and what held that empire together.

Incredible. The American deficit is half a billion dollars a year and people are blaming the deline of the U.S. on gay marriage. He very stupid man!

Incredible. The American deficit is half a billion dollars a year and people are blaming the deline of the U.S. on gay marriage. He very stupid man!
Yeah, we're at the mercy of foreign bankers, but god forbid those gays get married!!

Societies without exception [Roman, Greek, Moorish, Babylonian and Anglo-Saxon] flourished during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Inevitably, sexual morès would loosen and the societies would subsequently decline, only to rise again when they returned to more rigid sexual standards.

bullshit

Not to mention that Rome was fine for how long with pagans running the place but then once they adopt christianity, the empire falls...
Actually, I believe that back in those days, Christians as a whole were taught to obey their government, rather than change it like they do nowadays. So, I'll stick with the barbarians and corrupt officials.

Oh please, this is that stupid urban legend dressed in Canadian colors:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

It was false for the 2000 US Presidental election and it is false now.

<snip>.
If the West does collapse, it will be because of irrational people like you who are more worried about gay marriage than real problems, like war, the deficit, the environment, etc.

Be blessed.

Oh please, this is that stupid urban legend dressed in Canadian colors:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

It was false for the 2000 US Presidental election and it is false now.
Funny how so many of us smelled it as phony well before you pointed out its actual phoniness.

Funny how so many of us smelled it as phony well before you pointed out its actual phoniness.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... ;)

Couple of points I want to make here, most of them revolving around the countering of certain arguments.

One, the man is just pointing out a pattern. Are we to simply dismiss this pattern as an anamoly? Or can we be slightly more perceptive... and examine?

The man isn't saying that Rome, Greece, etc. fell because of sexual infidelity. You don't die because of the heart attack, you die of the complications a heart attack causes. Likewise, perhaps the infidelity is a symptom of something else?

Meanwhile, time to refute individual comments.

Dude111, you're simply misinformed. The environment is well on the way to recovery, as any reasonable expert in the field will tell you. If you want to stop pollution, look to Communist China; the world's largest polluter. Do not attack the West.

Dakini, your very comment is in and of itself a contradiction. You say that the poster is irrational for even considering religion as a basis for the fall of an empire.. and immediately blame Christianity for the fall in its stead. Now, here's the problem with your assertion; the Christianity was accompanied by sexual infidelity; Christianity was Policy Religion. On a technicality, after the fall of the western Rome, the empire continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire, where there was widespread Christianity, and flourished under the Christian government. You're either wrong or blind to point the blame at Christianity.

One last thought. Western Civilization, as it is now, will never collapse. We have something that no civilization has ever had; concrete foundations on concrete principals, being freedom, equality, and justice. Now, note the defining term: as it is now. Should we ever stray from Libertarianism into either the Moral Authoritarian attitudes of the Right, OR the Socialist/Fascist Dogma of the Left... THAT is our worry. We have the monopoly on world power, we have the monopoly on fianances, the environment (as I've previously stated) is improving... It is within our darker tendencies that we have reason to worry.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
...it weighs the same as wood... and is therefore...

a witch! A witch! Burn 'er!

You know whats wrong with society? People think too damn much.

You know whats wrong with society? People think too damn much.

Damn those thinkers ;)

It would be easier if we had a Brave New World thing going, now that you mention it. Force everyone happy, putting them in pre-defined roles that they are conditioned to accept... But where's the pride and humanity in that? Isn't Truth the highest good?

I'm a skeptic; it's my job to think.

Yarvolk, stick 'Fascism' where it belongs - with your "Moral Authoritarian attitudes of the Right". I'm sick and tired of the promulgation of fatuous crap. Stop it.

Outside forces??? like what?? the barbarians that were kept at bay for 200 years??? No it was the moral decay of the roman leadership. It was a string of 6 Crazy emperors Nero Caligula ect (most were gay, caligula dressed in drag for example) and an obssesion with orgies rampant in the streets to which women were treated as iteams of . Orgies were rampant and rome and old Romans who claimed thier society was turning Greek, were jailed or killed for challenging the emperor. Read the Works of CATO my friend to understand Rome and what held that empire together.

Outside forces such as, yes, the barbarians. I believed they sacked Rome in the end. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was the barbarians that sacked Rome, not moral decay. Its hard for a nebulous idea of right and wrong to sack a city.

Last time i checked, this whole 'moral decay' thing is all relative to some people who think god talks to them. Last time I looked, these 'decaying moral values' onlt changed the relative morals of a place, they did not destroy it. It takes an outside influence to destroy something. That or an inside rebellion.


I like to look at actual causes of things, not of ideas that other people say caused things.

Dakini, your very comment is in and of itself a contradiction. You say that the poster is irrational for even considering religion as a basis for the fall of an empire.. and immediately blame Christianity for the fall in its stead. Now, here's the problem with your assertion; the Christianity was accompanied by sexual infidelity; Christianity was Policy Religion. On a technicality, after the fall of the western Rome, the empire continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire, where there was widespread Christianity, and flourished under the Christian government. You're either wrong or blind to point the blame at Christianity.
I was saying it was rediculous to blame pagans for the fall of the roman empire when they had just adopted christianity. I wasn't blaming christianity.

If anything, it was the poor treatment of the Visigoths that helped their demise. Then when the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were pushed by other tribes further into their territory... it was the "barbarians" that undid the roman empire, not their sexual habits.

So, ALLl societies declined simply because of spiritual factors.


Interesting.


Bullshit, but interesting.


So, the British Empire fell because of their legalization of gay marriage, divorce, etc. back in the 30's?

The Incan Empire fell, not because they were overwhelmed by technology, but because they weren't Christian enough. It is, after all, their fault that Jesus was too fucking lazy to walk all the way across the Atlantic way back when to spread the word...

The French Empire? The Spanish? They were too gay?

How about the Navajo? Is he suggesting that the native communities fell because of a lack of spirituality? Or just misplaced spirituality?

I mean, if you are going to cite Rome then the corrolary to his thesis would imply that it must have been WHILE they were a great Christian community that they ROSE to power. Except, of course, that they weren't. No, in fact you can almost exactly tie the start of Rome's decline to the rise of Christianity within it.

So, was it the orgy that felled Rome? Or was it Christ? Well, the orgy sounds like a lot more of a fun way to go!

And the Canadian Empire will likewise succumb to the evil sodomites.



Because we just aren't spiritual enough anymore.... THAT is what is ruining families.


Is now the right time to dredge up that old statistical compilation from a year or so ago that noted that in the US divorce rates are far higher where more people identify themselves as Christian, and markedly lower where a greater percentage of the population indicates that they are agnostic/atheist?


Nahhhhhhhhhh... too easy.

But I DID love how the author had to toss in the jab at the Liberals for some legislative decisions. Don't suppose he has an edited version that notes that the current Conservative government has a stated opinion that it does not consider revisiting the issue to be a priority?



Hey, here's a thought. Canada ISN'T in decline. Far from it in fact. Economically speaking it has never been better off than it is right now. Any "decline" in this fine country only exists in the narrow mind of the author and his ilk that feel an overburdening need to behave as parental surrogates to all. Current problems such as an underfunded health care system are the fault of political asswipes, not church attendance. Supposed problems with crime are overhyped in the media and do not reflect the reality that many crime indicators have declined, and that in other areas the fact that it is more acceptable to report some crimes these days. It ain't the good old days of 30 years ago where the priest could rape the altar boys with impunity while telling us all how damn moral they are.


And if this person's familly is truly in as much danger as he seems to think, I would finally suggest that he deal with that by actually paying his spouse some attention instead of wasting his time frothing at the mouth about everybody elses relationships. I bet it would help.

Well, unless he's just another self-loathing closet homosexual who wraps themselves up in a strident veil of petty hatred to try and disguise the sad fact that who they really hate is themselves.

Yarvolk, stick 'Fascism' where it belongs - with your "Moral Authoritarian attitudes of the Right". I'm sick and tired of the promulgation of fatuous crap. Stop it.

I'm sorry, but didn't I put just as much blame on the Right as the Left?

They're both equally guilty for subverting the libertarian principles found in the Constitution. The Right, asserting its dogma, the Left...

Ha ha ha.

Tell me... when there is an outcry over an "offensive word" or an "intolerant mentality"... is it from the Left or the Right? Which is it, that seeks to destroy our freedom of Speech and Thought?

Outside forces such as, yes, the barbarians. I believed they sacked Rome in the end. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was the barbarians that sacked Rome, not moral decay. Its hard for a nebulous idea of right and wrong to sack a city.

Last time i checked, this whole 'moral decay' thing is all relative to some people who think god talks to them. Last time I looked, these 'decaying moral values' onlt changed the relative morals of a place, they did not destroy it. It takes an outside influence to destroy something. That or an inside rebellion.


I like to look at actual causes of things, not of ideas that other people say caused things.
The really fatuous thing about this entire discussion is that the OP presumes that there was a single causal factor that led to the demise of these empires. That's crap, and anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability can figure that out.

I was saying it was rediculous to blame pagans for the fall of the roman empire when they had just adopted christianity. I wasn't blaming christianity.

If anything, it was the poor treatment of the Visigoths that helped their demise. Then when the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were pushed by other tribes further into their territory... it was the "barbarians" that undid the roman empire, not their sexual habits.

Perhaps.

But perhaps the sexual infidelity was a symptom of something bigger?

I'm sorry, but didn't I put just as much blame on the Right as the Left?

They're both equally guilty for subverting the libertarian principles found in the Constitution. The Right, asserting its dogma, the Left...

Ha ha ha.

Tell me... when there is an outcry over an "offensive word" or an "intolerant mentality"... is it from the Left or the Right? Which is it, that seeks to destroy our freedom of Speech and Thought?

Oh, you're an American. An American n00b. That explains just about everything.

Canada ending would tip the scales. The world would plunge into darkness and dispare!
...However, that's only assuming that the world would notice a Canadian crisis. I'd bet money that the hateful bigots that we live among wouldn't care for Canada much more than they would for moose dung.

(notice the quoting of many other posts on the first page of this topic)

This is a seriously contrived article, really.

For starters, Rome rose to prominence BEFORE the rise of Christianity. While the idea of the family as a unit was rock solid throughout Roman history, sexual depravity was commonplace on all levels of society. Ancient Greece practically revelled in homosexuality. As a matter of fact, their greatest conquests were made by a homosexual, and nothing was really thought of it. Perhaps Canada needs more gay people if it is to truly prosper if you want to follow history's example?

Rome collapsed for several reasons, but not due to 'lack of faith' or the breakdown of the family as a unit. Their internal politics was corrupt, and they let the core of their strength, their legions, grow soft and out of date. By the time the hordes of germanic invaders were sweeping Italy on highly effective cavalry, the Romans were outdated.

Let's suppose that the problem in Canada is the break-up of the family, and the rise of individualism, as you maintain. I can understand that the break-up of family is a concern. But considering the large amount of immigration that Canada has, and the fact that a large proportion of immigrants are very true to family and community, I don't see the reason for hysteria. (Unless you're really concerned about getting 'browned out'. Sounds like you probably live out in whitewash village.)

Yup. Sounds like Canada is done for. :rolleyes:

What a load of moose dung.

I actually have to agree with Dobbsworld.

Perhaps Canada needs more gay people if it is to truly prosper if you want to follow history's example?

Hand me the full powers in this country, and you can bet your ass there'll be a major clean up, no-nonsense, and that we'll finally start wearing our collective pants towards the current US administration. I'd have to raise the carceral buget and build a couple of new prisons, too, because there's a lot of corrupt politician fat-cats, child and spouse abusers, financial scandal instigators that would find their way behind bars. (and stay there, unlike now).

Then again, I don't think my being gay makes me more qualified: just being ordinary Joe does. When are we ever going to choose our PM randomly? Heck, we should never let into office people who are deliberately trying to get more power.

As for the religious/spiritual factor: what a load of crap. No modern, industrialized country, with the possible exception of half of the USA, is still big on religion and Church. Not because of moral decay, but simply because in industrialized nations, poeple tend to be more educated and therefore, less easy to manipulate and control. So most end up letting go of their church, and if they still have faith, pursue their faith individually instead of having an Imam/Priest/Cleric tell them to go die for their religion.

Oh, you're an American. An American n00b. That explains just about everything.

I love how you just say that and fail to point out any flaw in my thinking. At all.

As for the religious/spiritual factor: what a load of crap. No modern, industrialized country, with the possible exception of half of the USA, is still big on religion and Church. Not because of moral decay, but simply because in industrialized nations, poeple tend to be more educated and therefore, less easy to manipulate and control. So most end up letting go of their church, and if they still have faith, pursue their faith individually instead of having an Imam/Priest/Cleric tell them to go die for their religion.

Actually, I have to agree on this one. Geroge Orwell actually made a point very similiar to this in Nineteen Eighty-Four, being that with industrialization comes wealth, with wealth comes education, with education comes intellect, with intellect comes autonomy.

As I've said before, Western Society is VERY different from all previous civilizations in this regard. We're based on individual liberty. As long as we stick to our base, we're pretty much the only civilization that appeals to everyone in the society.

Actually, I have to agree on this one. Geroge Orwell actually made a point very similiar to this in Nineteen Eighty-Four, being that with industrialization comes wealth, with wealth comes education, with education comes intellect, with intellect comes autonomy.

As I've said before, Western Society is VERY different from all previous civilizations in this regard. We're based on individual liberty. As long as we stick to our base, we're pretty much the only civilization that appeals to everyone in the society.

Well, not to defend the OP at all, I'm not so sure that industrialization HAS to mean further education, intellect, etc. It's quite conceivable to have a relatively illiterate, mindless drone society to toil away in factories of an oppressive government. In 1984, the world was industrialized as well, but the wealth was kept mostly in the hands of the upper and upper-middle classes, and the upper-middle classes had zero autonomy.

But I agree with your primary assertion that individual liberty, (in my view, espescially freedom of expression and of the press), is the strength and appeal of western society. Not, 'family values'.

You know what makes societies fall? Articles like this, bigotry, hatred, discrimination...

I am absolutely sick of hearing this family crap. First of all, only about 25% of Americans (I dont know the statistic for Canada) live in a standard nuclear family. Stop focusing on families and start focusing on individual human rights.

Secondly, stop trying to regulate sex, its not going to happen. Sex is a natural act that anyone consenting can take part in safely.

If you really wanted to stop threats to marriage, I suggest you start with:
The 50% divorce rate (hell, gay marriages might actually IMPROVE this statistic)
Adultery
Abusive husbands
Anna Nicole Smith
Reality shows like The Bachelor
Britney Spears (Yeah, hell of a family. Oh but it was a straight marriage it has to be better than a gay one!)

You wanna see the decline of civilization? You're doing a good job, keep it up and you might.

In 1984, the world was industrialized as well, but the wealth was kept mostly in the hands of the upper and upper-middle classes, and the upper-middle classes had zero autonomy.

Wanna bet?

As explained in the section where Winston is reading through Goldstein's book, advancement in industrialization had COMPLETELY stopped, and all industrialization was aimed in creating things that would be destroyed in wars. Why? Easy, the excess amount of consumer items create wealth, which creates... You catch my drift.

Goldstein (Orwell) explained this with a great deal of thoroughness. He emphasized HEAVLIY the lack of modern advancement. The world of 1984 is very much the same as the world of 1949, the only advances being advances in torture and a few odds and ends in war (i.e. the floating fortresses).

In the world of consumer industrialism, you WILL have the cycle that fuels Libertarianism. I've already explained this process many times, but I will do so once more, in a combination of good measure and emphasis (mostly the former).

Excess goods create wealth. Wealth buys education. Education grows Intellect. Intellect breeds the ability to think for oneself, which is the ultimate form of autonomy.

The 50% divorce rate (hell, gay marriages might actually IMPROVE this statistic)

Actually, I do agree with you, but... to be fair, statistics show that gay relationships aren't as stable as straight ones.

I love how you just say that and fail to point out any flaw in my thinking. At all.
Your thinking isn't 'flawed', it's skewed. Skewed by virtue of your upbringing, which has so skewed political terminology as to popularly, yet erroneously lump Fascism in with the political Left. Don't consider my decision not to engage you any further as some sort of victory, n00b.

I just couldn't be bothered going through the motions of raking you over the coals. Been there, done that. Consider this your one-time pass card, fella.

statistics show that gay relationships aren't as stable as straight ones.
Oh, and you'll have to do better than this if you want to be considered credible. Back up your assertions, please.

Actually, I do agree with you, but... to be fair, statistics show that gay relationships aren't as stable as straight ones.
I'm certain social stigma, the need older gay men had to seek anonymous sex to avoid repercussions and repression, the higher substance abuse caused by societal rejection and stress incurred by the entourage's reaction when one announces they're in a relationship with someone of the same sex have nothing to do with that :rolleyes:

Side note: I defy statistics. I'm 23 years old, only ever had a single sexual partner, and would've gladly married him and lived the rest of my life with him had he not left me for another. Statistics are only ever that: stats.

The strength of marriage and family is not dictated by law. Would the writer of the article characterize a family that was held together by the force of law as a strong family? Whatever happened to love and decency for holding families together?

The laws simply reflect change in the family makeup and unit. "Sexual restraint?" Does this nut really think that Canada, or the U.S., or any other country, can enforce a law for "sexual restraint" sensibly or consitently? And whose responsibility is it to maintain the moral compass of a nation, if not the people who live in it? In any case the answer to his whinings is not the law; but in the hearts and minds of individuals.

The strength of marriage and family is not dictated by law. Would the writer of the article characterize a family that was held together by the force of law as a strong family? Whatever happened to love and decency for holding families together?

The laws simply reflect change in the family makeup and unit. "Sexual restraint?" Does this nut really think that Canada, or the U.S., or any other country, can enforce a law for "sexual restraint" sensibly or consitently? And whose responsibility is it to maintain the moral compass of a nation, if not the people who live in it? In any case the answer to his whinings is not the law; but in the hearts and minds of individuals.
Well said: morality can never be legislated. Besides, the OP reeks of scapegoating, ignoring all outside factors of a societal collapse. Pretty much sounds like when Jerry Falwell said "OMG Hurricanes and terrorists kill us because we've been too easy on teh gays!"

Wanna bet?

As explained in the section where Winston is reading through Goldstein's book, advancement in industrialization had COMPLETELY stopped, and all industrialization was aimed in creating things that would be destroyed in wars. Why? Easy, the excess amount of consumer items create wealth, which creates... You catch my drift.

Goldstein (Orwell) explained this with a great deal of thoroughness. He emphasized HEAVLIY the lack of modern advancement. The world of 1984 is very much the same as the world of 1949, the only advances being advances in torture and a few odds and ends in war (i.e. the floating fortresses).

In the world of consumer industrialism, you WILL have the cycle that fuels Libertarianism. I've already explained this process many times, but I will do so once more, in a combination of good measure and emphasis (mostly the former).

Excess goods create wealth. Wealth buys education. Education grows Intellect. Intellect breeds the ability to think for oneself, which is the ultimate form of autonomy.

(Not trying to hijack the thread...)

In all fairness, you never stated 'consumer' industrialism, you made a blanket statement that industrialization = advanced intellect. 1949 was a fairly industrialized time in society, thus the world of 1984 was an industrialized one.

The generation of wealth depends largely on the distribution of wealth. in Orwell's 1984, it mostly ends up in the hands of the state, with the 'common man' living in relative squalor. You can really attribute the printing press as the primary tool for the advancement of liberal ideals, and in a world such as 1984, if the press is controlled by the state, industrialization doens't have to give rise to education. Espescially if you don't need an educated populace to do factory work.

(Not trying to hijack the thread...)

In all fairness, you never stated 'consumer' industrialism, you made a blanket statement that industrialization = advanced intellect. 1949 was a fairly industrialized time in society, thus the world of 1984 was an industrialized one.

The generation of wealth depends largely on the distribution of wealth. in Orwell's 1984, it mostly ends up in the hands of the state, with the 'common man' living in relative squalor. You can really attribute the printing press as the primary tool for the advancement of liberal ideals, and in a world such as 1984, if the press is controlled by the state, industrialization doens't have to give rise to education. Espescially if you don't need an educated populace to do factory work.

In that case, this is purely a confusion associated with semantic connotation.

I meant "consumer industrialism" in the beginning, but failed to specify as such. Likewise, the fault is mine. You are right in your point, as we've both said, both having read the book and both understanding the point made. I'll be more specific next time :P

The author sounds like a typical client of sadomasochistic brothels. :rolleyes:

Frothing at the mouth as (s)he speaks of being socially pressured into partaking in wanton acts of carnality and losing one's soul to the act, but getting oiled and slapped with leather belts every Friday night. :rolleyes:

Maybe they like the grinding of a stiletto heel on bare buttocks while being forced to denounce their desires, but that doesn't mean I'm going to partake in the fantasy. They can fucking get bent. :upyours:

Hey folks i came across a neat article a while back,I thought it was pretty interesting and I'd like you hear your thoughts on it.
Been having same thoughts about the fall of each civilization and their signs (note not causes, signs) can you provide a link to the article?

Your thinking isn't 'flawed', it's skewed. Skewed by virtue of your upbringing, which has so skewed political terminology as to popularly, yet erroneously lump Fascism in with the political Left. Don't consider my decision not to engage you any further as some sort of victory, n00b.

I just couldn't be bothered going through the motions of raking you over the coals. Been there, done that. Consider this your one-time pass card, fella.


I don't consider it a victory, I consider it a point. Now, if you will, show me where I am wrong. You need to understand something about me, I am a student, who came here to be educated. That's my philosophy in life.

So, now tell me, why isn't the shunning of free speech in the name of being "Politically Correct" Fascism?

I want to know why it isn't. Likewise, until someone tells me why, I'll believe that restrictions on innate human freedoms IS Fascism.

Oh, and you'll have to do better than this if you want to be considered credible. Back up your assertions, please.

It's a matter of connecting the dots.

The HIV virus is greatest spread among gay men, right? Doesn't that indicate a fairly promiscuous life style?

But note that I also said gay RELATIONSHIPS. Marriages, according to futureofchildren.org (http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290855), tend to be more stable than just relationships. As such, it's not illogical to say that it could bring down the divorce rate.

I simply wanted to introduce my one little tidbit, concerning relationships and relationships alone. Was that so wrong?

An Empire like the Byzantine one, which was always a staunch defender of Christianity, and most of all through its latter stage, nonetheless fell to the huge gay brothel that was the Ottoman Monarchy. The Ottoman Empire remained the most tolerant state towards homosexuality, and officialy poligamist for the next 450 years. The Moghul Empire, which competed for those titles and others, existed fine and dandy for 300 years. Promiscuity was at its peak in Britain when it built the largest mercantile Empire (just ask the Puritans). You want morals? Pray tell, how long did any single dinasty of Ancient Egypt survive? Are you aware of what Egyptians engaged in? And poligamy? How long did the Arab Caliphate last?

As to the examples at hand:
-Rome had always been opened to whatever sexual trend of the Orient. Cybele's cult was around in Rome in the 3rd century BC, and quite popular; among other things, it involved volontary castration in the image of Attis. The "decay of Rome" is an idiotic myth started by the Romans themselves; if anything, the very beginning of the Empire as a permanent military dictatorship (starting with Octavian himself), with the gradual degradation of the senatorial class and the end of expansions (military gains that had helped feed a lumpen-proletarian Italian Peninsula), is what is responsible for the fall of the Empire. The fall of the Empire in the gradually irrelevant West, that is - because the East never noticed that it was "supposed to be finished", arguably carrying on with a Christian face until 1453. In fact, the Empire that had ended in the West was the most Christian and high-morality state evah - to answer the pressures of the "barbarians" (its former cronies, in most cases), it had begun to appeal to God and turn messianic.
-Ancient Greece was always, but always, accompanied by sexual groove. Homosexuality came late there? Well, let's see: homosexuality was held in esteem by the Cretans, the people of the obscure period, to Socrates and Alexander, and everybody else until the Christians came.

Hm. Awkward silence...