How long before a counter-revolution against degeneracy? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14742069
I'm getting the feeling that due to Western economic circumstances, and the way that societies have tended to shift in 'cycles', the winds may be shifting in the direction of a counter-revolution against American degeneracy, similar to the French Revolution, which was a violent revolt against excessive authoritarianism, but in the opposite direction, similar to the rise of the Victorian era in England, which was actually a generation becoming more 'conservative' than the previous, hopefully not that prudish though (I think not being able to show ankles is a bit much).

Likewise the post-WWII economic boom had such a dramatic effect on America, that it lead to an era of unprecedented excess, financially and morally, and helped pave the way for the new 'counter culture' and degenerates of the Baby Boomer industry, who've turned our entertainment industry into a moral sewer, and helped destroy our economy for our children with their greed.

I feel like the pendulum's beginning to swing the other way though, such as with Trump's surprising victory and Republican control of all branches of government, as well as the rise of 'far right' parties in 'liberal Europe' and success of Brexit.

Today mass culture is so rank that you'd have to go back to some of the more perverted Roman Emperors to find anything comparable; internet porn and smutty entertainment is marketed to children and young girls, Americans are obese, lazy, and nihilistic, infant genocide has been turned into a corporate industry under the guise of "women's rights" and radical liberals of Salon.com are more offended by traditional 'nuclear families' than they are by admitted pedophile activists, and adult men having a right to enter girl's bathrooms, not to mention the number of morally unproductive Americans obessed with little more than their imagined "freedom", when they couldn't be more of a slave in their cubicle prison they spend 50 or more hours a week at.

It's beginning to resemble Sodom and Gomorroh, and there's not much "further left" America can go, before it rebounds back in the opposite direction, just like the French Revolution, but in reverse. If we're lucky it'll be a peaceful one, but if not it might get a little bloody for the 'elites' like it did under the Jacobins...

Except maybe this time it'll the the heads of radical abortionists, pornographers, public sociology professors, "LGBT activiests", and degenerate entertainers like Amy Schumer on the guillotine - instead of Marie Antoinette's.

And many "far-right" politicians today, will be the moderates or center-lefts of tomorrow, while the far social left and libertarians will be... in the new Bastille, like their libertine rapist saint Marquis de Sade.

If this happens I won't condone it, but I won't actively oppose it anyway, just like I wouldn't have actively opposed the Rebel Alliance blowing up the Evil Empire.

Because there's only so far to the immoralist left you can pull the rubber band, before it swings back hard to the right, and if individuals want to intentionally spread moral disease, they should expect to be treated like lepers.
#14742241
anna wrote:
Um.... what happened to your adult male demographic?

Did it get lost somewhere on your slippery slope?

It's produced by horny white male producers who enjoy the thought of making women as slutty and easy as possible, since this gives males power over them, unlike women who are 'hard to get'.

So yeah, it has a bad influence on men, but ends up affecting girls more directly, especially as far as young pregnancies in the ghetto are concerned.
#14742364
Hey you, Whitehouse,
Ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse,
Ha ha charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street.
You're nearly a real treat,
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?

You gotta stem the evil tide,
And keep it all on the inside.
Mary you're nearly a treat,
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry.


[youtube]TcV4B-74pDk[/youtube]
#14744022
Mercenary wrote:I find it ironic that the most degenerate person I have seen on this site crusades against degeneracy.

But you're an anarchist, so you can't proclaim morals if you believe morality is meaningless.
#14744149
Scheherazade wrote:But you're an anarchist, so you can't proclaim morals if you believe morality is meaningless.

Anarchy is about not having one group of people who rule over others. It's not about morals. Do you define 'moral' as "what the person in charge says"? If so, I can see why you'd be labeled as the most degenerate person on the forum.
#14744189
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Anarchy is about not having one group of people who rule over others. It's not about morals.

Then you can't say that one group ruling over others is immoral. :lol:

Do you define 'moral' as "what the person in charge says"? If so, I can see why you'd be labeled as the most degenerate person on the forum.

You just contradicted yourself and admitted that it is about having morals, since according to you one group ruling over others is objectively immoral.

This is too easy.
#14744190
Hong Wu wrote:The current generation of far left liberals have a fertility rate close to zero, so I assume we'd have to wait for them to die. This is what they keep saying about conservatives since older people tend to be more conservative, I guess it's projection.

True, once the old degenerate far-left Baby Boomers who run the smut entertainment industry die off, we'll probably see more of a cultural shift toward the right, as we're beginning to see already, even in "liberal" Europe what with Brexit, and "far right" politicians like Hoffer and the French National front surging in popularity.
#14744191
@Hong Wu Political beliefs aren't genetically transferable.

I couldn't find much in the way of data on birth and adoption rates by political ideology except that birth rates of Romney voters were a bit higher. This doesn't account for immigration however or the higher birth rates overall of minorities.

Overall I think predictions about our political future based purely on current demographic trends should be taken with a pile of salt.
#14744216
You have to realize that there is no rational reason to give foreign rejects higher status than domestic citizens who are still capable of surviving, yet this is what the left does. Western religion is not wealth-oriented so it should be capable of preserving the races and their traditions despite a financial crunch, unfortunately Christianity doesn't work without a strong cult of the leader who will actually do things like keep foreigners out.

Enter Trump :excited: Le Pen is mightier than the sword :D Although there are still plenty of troubles on the horizon.
#14744219
Scheherazade wrote:Then you can't say that one group ruling over others is immoral. :lol:

You seem to be new to arguing in English. You tried to exclude someone from giving an opinion on morals, on the grounds that they are an anarchist ("But you're an anarchist, so you can't proclaim morals if you believe morality is meaningless"). I pointed out that anarchy does not involve "believing morality is meaningless". You were the person who incorrectly thought that anarchy meant a lack of morals. The definition of anarchy is not about morals; but an anarchist has morals (just as all sorts of other people have morals too).

You just contradicted yourself and admitted that it is about having morals, since according to you one group ruling over others is objectively immoral.

This is too easy.

No, you're not finding this 'easy' at all. You thought anarchy involved a lack of morals. I corrected you. It is you who is now contradicting yourself. Whether that's because you don't understand logic, or English, I can't tell.

Can you say why you didn't understand what anarchy is? Is it because you take your morals from someone in charge of you?
#14744407
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You seem to be new to arguing in English. You tried to exclude someone from giving an opinion on morals, on the grounds that they are an anarchist ("But you're an anarchist, so you can't proclaim morals if you believe morality is meaningless"). I pointed out that anarchy does not involve "believing morality is meaningless". You were the person who incorrectly thought that anarchy meant a lack of morals. The definition of anarchy is not about morals; but an anarchist has morals (just as all sorts of other people have morals too).


No, you're not finding this 'easy' at all. You thought anarchy involved a lack of morals. I corrected you. It is you who is now contradicting yourself. Whether that's because you don't understand logic, or English, I can't tell.


I take morals from those who are objectively correct, rather than pretend to be a better judge of virtue than the virtuous like a petulant child unfit of self-governance.

While the anarchist fantasies himself as 'free', in reality he lives his whole life a slave to his own vices, while the virtuous are free in spirit, as the truth sets men free, not their self-delusions of 'individualism' and self-authority.

You'll always have someone in charge of you, I highly doubt you're a self-made millionaire who retired at 30 and runs his own company single-handedly. So your 'freedom' is merely a spook of the mind, like Max Stirner said.
#14747121
I suspect many trends of the 20th century will alter/reverse in the 21st. The passing away of the odious baby boomer generation will be significant as will the coming into their own of the millennials.

The trend towards democracy was founded on the military potential of ordinary people that the rifle enabled. That situation has passed already, so the foundation of democracy has already gone. Ordinary people have essentially zero military potential in an age of AI piloted cruise missiles and other high tech super weapons. Consequently their political leverage will only erode with time in the 21st century whereas it tended to expand in the early part of the 20th century.

Christianity has been in hard decline from the Victorian period up till now and this has released a lot of pent up sexual confusion. The Christian's moderation of sexual mores was not altogether fitting for our species, yet with its passing sexual mores become more or less a matter wild speculation and experimentation. This of course means a freefall into hedonism. Eventually this will hit nadir also and some new hopefully more rational sexual mores will emerge.

That in broad strokes is my best guess.

More stupid arguments, I see. It won't matter be[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of[…]