Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Monday, April 2, 2012

Epic Fail

Most of you have figured out by now I constantly have several plates in the air. I multi-task pretty well.

So, while I build a mundane web page for IIIGear or make plans for running a gun show remotely, or meet with a local political pro about this or that, I also have one or two bits of what I call "Brainwork" being chewed in the background. Very rarely am I pondering life's "Big" issues - I've pretty much settled my positions on most at this point in my life. I'm still open to reason, but I am the first to admit that any argument against my position had better be strong to even get my attention.

Bill Nye has been challenging paradigms at his new place. I'm not sure he's trying to shock you, so much as he simply doesn't care what you think. I like that about Bill, and others like him who do as they see fit and make no apologies. That's called Liberty. Look it up.

So, here is one paradigm every "religious" or "politically conservative" child is taught as fact that simply doesn't hold up to the first direct contact with real-world observation.

How many times have we heard that our Founding Generation was more "Moral" than are we, and those arguing the point immediately point to sexual modesty as the definition of "Morality" for the time. Obviously, that is bunk, as we explored about a week ago with just a scratch-the-surface-look at Franklin, Washington & Jefferson.

When our Founding Generation spoke of "Morality" they rarely took its measure by sexual convention. Yes, they were more "Moral" as a society, but sex had nothing to do with it.

Here's another "Fact" taught to the same batch of poor kids who are expected to one day become good little Republicans: The decline of a civilization is measurable by the amount of moral decay on display. Again, most people spouting this line are speaking of sexual morality, incorrectly.

But let's test that paradigm with a few brief firefights with observable fact: If the premise were true, that a society's decline can be measured by its public display of immoral (sexual) behaviors...how do we explain China, India, Japan, just as starters?

Each "Civilization" pre-dates Greece & Rome, yet all are essentially living today as have their ancestors for thousands of years. Japan has strayed the furthest from her true cultural roots, thanks to American Occupation after WWII. But that is only the work of the last 70 years or so.

Instead of looking at sexual behavior as a measure for morality, is it not more accurate to point out that most Civilizations in the known History of Man have come into or out of existence through military campaign?

Rome fell not because Caesars became greedy and lustful (Show me any man capable of raising armies and conquering the world, I'll show you a guy with a host of such pursuits!) - Rome fell because she over-reached and claimed ground she could not keep militarily. Greece conquered the world with Alexander, but when he died, she cannibalized herself.

Yet, Japan survived for thousands of years and only stumbled when she was forced to interact with the rest of the world. When left alone, she was a quiet nation who did not bother her neighbors, whose sexual "modesty" had zero bearing on the strength of the society. It was common practice, for instance, to traveling Samurai to be offered the (married) woman of the home when he stopped in as a guest.

Hmmm...that kind of "sexual depravity" and the Japanese survived for thousands of years.

China: Another ancient people who still live today, by percentage, as did their ancestors a thousand years ago. She only suffered when her Leaders took her to a bridge too far militarily. If the depravity of a people is a measure of how fast their society is unraveling, and one were to look at a timeline of Chinese culture, one would have to contort tremendously to make the argument that a sexually permissive country, that is today ruled by Communists, is failing...

China will only implode if she over-reaches into the world and must fight to eat.

China is a rising power by any measure, with the ultimate depravity in power. (As did Germany)

India: Likely the oldest of the three cultures. The Indian people have always been more passive in the face of aggression...and have you seen those sculptures?! Ho ho ho!!! Sexual permissive people in decline? I think not. Indians will be around when Americans are speaking Chinese in Kindergarten.

No, folks, I simply can not agree that "sexual modesty" is what the Founding Generation had in mind, nor is it any reliable measure of the decline of a culture. The premise does not survive first contact with observable facts.

Sure, one can cherry-pick any examples from history and jump up and down, point, and say "See! There! I told you!! Rome declined and they had Calligula! It's a fact!". Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments do not survive.

Sorry, most Civilizations come and go from this Earth through combat with other Tribes.

Stop worrying about the other guy or gal and who/what they choose to do sexually, and pay more attention to who wants your land, your water, your wife or daughter as breeders, and the sweat equity off your brow. Those are the people who will take us to the brink of existence.

It has always been so. It will always be so.

I have counseled folks for two years online and in print to always, always do a gut-check on First Principles and the underlying Premise of any argument.

How can any thinking person take the position that "sexualy depravity" of a people represents their end as a Civilization, when the sons of Romulus & Remus founded Rome with the Rape of the Sabine?

The premise that sexual behavior is an indicator, especially a leading indicator, of a failing culture or civilization is an epic Fail.

Just one of the nuggets I've been chewing on as I work.



  1. I believe you are indulging in a bit of propter hoc yourself.

    The issue isn't whether citizens (even prominent ones) were lead astray at any given time but how acceptable it was socially and whether the normal morals pushed one to cover it up or openly flaunt it.

    Once a society has reached a point that the shame is gone then not only is it a breeding ground of sexual deviance but more open to crimes against the people as well. Individually men have always been weak but idealistically a society shouldn't be. If it becomes so it cannot stand.

    1. Ah, here is where many arguments get into the weeds. The good 'ol Tomayto/Tomahto dispute.

      At the risk of sounding like I advocate moral relativity (which I do not), one man's "sexual deviance" is another's harmless threesome.

      And the very word "deviance" simply means different, correct? Different from everyone else. When is "Deviance" morally wrong, and where does Liberty protect the concept?

      In the three cultures I selected, China, Japan and India, these practices were all socially acceptable, for centuries and longer. In most countries it was the introduction of Christianity that started to define these behaviors as "bad".

      I agree that "Shame" must be a component of real "Morality". The "Moral" person feels shame when indulging in malum in se behavior. Hopefully they feel such shame at the mere contemplation of the act that it never actually takes place.

      And where that shame is missing, one has a culture in trouble...as we have now.


    2. Yet here is the rub. What you are claiming is deviant in Chinese or Japanese culture wasn't at the time it was practiced. Other things, even some that Western Europeans would look on as trivial, were. It was the same with Indian, Roman etc. even if a society is sexually open there are still other societal norms that are practiced and these differ depending on the environment that society hails from.

      Western Christian sexual morals are in many ways an offshoot of the environment and instituted at the tribal level for very real reasons. More Southern societies usually had more open sexual traditions because they had different environmental causes facing them.

      The actual moral traditions are not what is really important. What is important is once the society begins breaking them openly it grows until most all social traditions are thrown to the wind. The next step being ignoring rights, property, honesty, etc.

    3. Pioneer: Here's where I have to speak of "Relativity" without crossing into advocacy of the concept. Let's use a simple vehicle to make my point: Hemlines and bustlines have gone up and down since the birth of America. Has every rise in the hemline and plunge in the bustline hinted at degeneracy, since the hemline started lower, the bust higher, at some point?

      Since America was, predominantly (during settling and Founding) an extension of England, the timeline gets skewed if we try to begin on July 4, 1776.

      I understand the point you are making, but during any "Civilization's life" societal norms, like our hemline and bustlines, expand and contract.

      Rome was founded on rape. At the "height" of the Roman Empire, openly raping a Roman woman was not tolerated. In the end, again, rape was far less a taboo. So at what point in the timeline do we say "It was all downhill from here..."

      It can't be done that neatly, especially using only sexual indicators.

      Society today tells us that burning a Government employee out of hearth and home is a bad act. But in 1775, a big chunk of "society" was just fine and dandy with the concept. Again, we have this constant flux of values, of "societal traditions", and deciding when to stick a thumbnail into a timeline and declare "...this is when society began losing it's moral tack..." becomes completely arbitrary.

      Was society "right" in 1775 or are "they" right today? It's the same hemline/bustline variable.

      The only Constant is Change.

      Big shifts across big chunks of "society" relative to several "societal norms" in a short time frame would scream "We have a problem" to be sure.

      My argument is for the folks who hang their hat on sexual changes in society as harkening to failure. Some historical data mirror a change in sexual norms along with decline, but at least as many datapoints show a "loosening" of sexual morals with no other detriment.

      Afterall, China, Japan and India did not simply "begin" one day from the ether, sexually at some point on a spectrum. They evolved to those points, over time.


    4. I think there are some moral absolutes. Child sex - whether it is rape, molestation by a parent or sibling or some trusted person in "authority" (priest, minister, doctor, teacher) is one. I do not for a moment believe that simply because an activity - such as rape - starts to become a cultural "norm" that it becomes acceptable.

      Any taking by force is a theft - a theft of that person's freedom, their health, their sense of self. Woman or child (or even male rape, which goes on in the gay culture much more than we might like to acknowledge), rape is an assault and a theft that cannot be justified. When a culture DOES attempt to justify it, you have your answer - morality is gone, and that civilization has doomed itself.

      Between consenting adults, I do not see where the term "perversion" is valid, _except_ where one person takes advantage of the weakness of another to coerce consent. Which does indeed happen. But when a society judges that consent is not required - like islam teaching the muslims sex with an infant is OK if there is no penetration _and_ that if penetration takes place, the infant must be married. Or that rape entitles the rapist to "marry" the victim, placing her in a life of slavery where beatings, starvation, and abuse by others in the household is the norm.

      When society starts to accept such things as normal, acceptable - as with the muslims - that society is forfeit, morally.

    5. I agree with you Rich T. I don't care if two consenting adults are living with each other or having sex with one another. But, when they use the STATE, such as fags do, to propagate their lifestyle and impress and indoctrinate it in the minds of our children, then I have a problem. Most kids, when I was a kid, thought homo sex was a bad taboo. Ask kids today what they think of homo sex. They didn't wake up one day and say homo sex is cool or bi sex is cool... they were indoctrinated into believing that it is okay and many of our kids, because they have been indoctrinated that it is okay are now experimenting with it. And the longer we keep indoctrinating our kids who have now grown up and teach their kids and their kids... well, anyone with common sense can see where this leads.

      Should the STATE be the moral arbitrator? Well, that depends. I am sure that child buggers would wish that the STATE would make child buggering legal... or have no say in it at all.

      Anyhow: concerning Rome... we are told at its heart lies the rape of the Vestal Virgin Rhea Silvia by the God Mars. The result was the birth of the twins Romulus and Remus and similarity with the very ancient deity twins the Dioscuri, symbols of sunrise and sunset. And... Romulus disappeard one day in a thunder storm and appeared in a vision to Julius Proculus who told him that he had ascended to the gods and was to be worshipped as Quirinus. ;-)

      One needs to be careful to separate the myth from the fact.

      And Bill, being the frat boy that I am, it's okay for you to make your own whiskey with your store bought still and drink yourself to oblivion if you so desire. It is not okay for you to bugger little boys... not that I think your... morals... would lead you that way. Follow? ;-)

    6. Curtis: You do understand that I know the myth and the fact, I hope.

      I said "The sons of Romulus & Remus", meaning those who are of that Tribe who follow the Romulus & Remus myth...and those real human beings did, indeed, rape the Sabine to gain breeding stock.


    7. I've read Socrates Kerodin, I'm not saying that the rape of the Sabine woman are false, nor I'm I saying that it is true. It is just considered a legend that bears no historical evidence other than what Socrates tells us. If I am wrong, please show me the way. I am always willing to learn. I don't know everything. The legend tells us that it was Romulus who devised the trap. Socrates was born about 280 years after the deed.


    8. I agree, we have no conclusive proof, either way - but what we do have fits with "likely true" much more readily than does the story of Romulus & Remus and the suckling wolf. ;)

      And Romans such as Livy tried to polish the Sabine story with a more romanticized version of events that doesn't hold water, but does track with a "tightening" of Roman morals from the time of the Sabine to the time of Christ.

      My entire point for the column, though, was not to get into the weeds, but to address those folks who equate "Morality" almost uniquely to "Sexual behavior".

      That line of thinking is taking us way off course.


    9. And actually, I got Socrates mixed up with Plutarch... that kind of nagged me after I said it so I went to my bookshelf. And I think I have made it clear that we shouldn't get to hung up on sexual behavior myself. What we need to be careful of, like with our... constitution, is how far people want to go with their sexual behavior. There are boundaries, like our constitution. And like our constitution, people will test those boundaries and push those boundaries until they become accepted... like they have done with our constitution. There has to be a line that is not crossed. otherwise, as we agree, we'll end up like the Romans... a has-been. Not to far from it.

  2. K
    Within those three cultures, individual freedom was never the driving force, contrary the collective was the force.

    As much as can be learned from the eastern culture, which is much!! It lends itself to a collectivist mentality not one of the individual. If I am wrong, recent history can not prove it.

    Let me make clear that the obsession with sexual indiscretion from the church is absurd, as with history the church of today has proven itself inconsequential at best irrelevant in reality.

    Religion has little to do with God, it simply gives license to those that wish to implement their will, on others by way of guilt.

    1. Mozart: Absolutely correct regarding the nature of Eastern collectivism. In fact, the number of truly "Liberty" based societies on Earth is very tiny, and the track record is dismal.

      Even in Greece and Rome, one bent knee to someone else. Always.

      America is the only place on Earth where the lowliest, most unemployed and alcohol-addled man need not bent knee to his political "Leader".

      At least, that's how it is supposed to be.

      And my message is to the same people you mention: Those folks who seek to use sex as just another weapon to make people bend knee or surrender Liberty. That behavior is more destructive to Liberty than is the sexual act they so despise. It is the same intellectual argument for drugs, alcohol, or eating a bullet - I say people have the Liberty to do what they wish, so long as it does not infringe the equal rights of others.

      I do not have to like what others do, but I do have to leave them alone if I believe in Liberty.

      And for the very religious among us: If you think eating a bullet or some other act is offensive to God, let God discuss it with the Sinner when he chooses.


    2. Oh - Mozart, the tomahawk arrived today.

      Thank you!


  3. Stop trying to tell me what YOU THINK God wants, I'll talk to him myself, one on one!
    Nothing worse than a know it all busybody who can't get his facts straight, or speaks from an evil heart.
    And if God is so great, why does he need you to do his killing for him? I'm sure when he wants to slay someone, he can do it very well himself.
    Semper Fi, 0321

    1. Semper Fi: I heard this years ago from Liddy.

      He gave the most lucid articulation I've ever heard for the relationship between God and Man...

      He was on a plane with a nervous woman sitting next to him. He asked her if she was afraid of flying. She said yes. Then he asked if she believed in God. She said Yes.

      Liddy said: Do you really think if God decided to call you home, he'd have to wait for you to get on a plane?

      She calmed down. ;)

      The way I see it, like you, if God has any problem with me or how I behave, he'll let me know.


    2. K, hope we didn't have a misunderstanding. My comment was not addressed at you, but at those who decide to play their 'I'm better than you' morality games over some pictures or comments they see. I like your comments of late, lots of common sense and a get off my ass attitude. Perhaps I slipped up in my punctuation, did not mean to address it the way it came out. Sorrryy.
      Semper Fi, 0321

    3. No worries, Semper Fi. I knew it was not at me. ;)

      And your point is dead-on: If more people would worry about their own sex/drugs/relationships with God/morals and everything else, we'd all have fewer problems.


  4. Good K, glad it arrived.

    I thank God for kindred spirit's.

    Thank you K.

    Look Man, I'm just another brick in the wall, without guys like you I'd still be sitting in my smoke filled ballroom trying to figure out how to load the perfect man killer.

    I go in and out of what makes perfect sense, but in the end ...I need a reality check, guys like you (and many others) offer that up.

    Thank you!

    1. Mozart: I don't have any more answers than anyone else, I just have what works for me. ;)

      In the end I may be the one in for the biggest surprise.


  5. While I personally do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors, we and you are reaping the fruit of hippie talk (yes, I am old enough that I personally witnessed it). And did not Christ say speaking in behalf of His Father...

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

    I doubt Christ was talking religion. And I certainly do not wish to live in any Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or Roman (then or now) model/idea of... liberty, despite their propensity for their morals. And despite Romes many gods, and despite Romes many shortcomings, the Roman citizens were at one time a very moral people amongst themselves. This is not to say that there were no immorality amongst individuals in Roman society. But surely, when their accepted morals decayed and their immorality became acceptable and rampant in Roman society, it certainly played a role in the demise of the Roman Empire. When individual license and unchecked immorality becomes the norm in a society, that society decays... and we are bearing witness to that in America today. And anyone who denies it has not been awake these past... 53 years. It has been years since I have read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I would suggest it as reading material before one blames Romes fall entirely on over extending its military... as there is a common theme in Romes politics and the decay of its morals.

    Anyhow, does it harm me if two men are stuffing each others butt? No. Are you going to teach your children in your homeschooling that it is okay for them to man puck man butts? No? Then I guess morals do matter. As it is, the immoral system, or whatever one wants to call it, is impressing on young minds that it is OKAY for boys to poke other boys butts. Are you okay with that? Then morals do matter? After all, it is the immoral system, or whatever one wants to call it, that is telling the youth of America that freedom and liberty is doing your own thing... whatever feels good, that those morals that were prevalent in our founding are... passe. Surely, one can see the preponderance of immorality accelerate the demise of liberty. Why... go tent out with OWS for a week or two?

    We all fall short of the glory of God. But when lawlessness becomes the norm... when morals are no longer subject to the laws of nature and natures God, when morals become passe and do as you wish... it catches on, especially in young undeveloped minds, and becomes rampant and the norm... it will, it does, and it will evolve into anything goes. And here we are. We have evolved from a predominately moral peoples at our founding. Imagine where we will be if we keep it up?

    And despite Thomas Jefferson's shortcomings, and despite his peccadillo's, he also said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

    Patrick Henry said: "There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations..."

    And while dear old Franklin may have been a ladies man... well, the French ladies were more, say... accommodating to his/their proclivities.

    But this is all my perspective.

    And while that picture up there has the appearance of being damning, we only see what it appears to be. Not to say that many "religious" leaders are... well... religious.

    Anyhow, here we are in its preponderance... eating its fruit.

    1. Curtis: Rome fell because she over-extended militarily coupled with the fact that her people became fat and lazy, just like ours today, while the rest of the world was hungry.

      A fat and lazy people indulge their whims because they no longer have to focus on hunting and gathering, and they become slothful and easy to conquer, because they rot from the inside out.

      Our downfall mirrors Rome, with the additional assistance of the world's Communists who have been achieving their own goals to accelerate our moral decline since the end of WWII.


    2. Sure they became fat and lazy Kerodin. Their pursuit of... moral license, took up much of their time. The over extension of their military was used to pay for it.

      So in that regard... yes, here we are.

    3. I am certainly not wise enough to state that the current sick state of morality in this country is cause for its downfall, but I will say that I believe it is a symptom, a sign.

      Again, not of that between consenting adults, but when we have groups like NMBLA (National Man-Boy Love Association, IIRC) and others who are trying to have "pedophilia" removed from the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) so that it is acceptable, when we permit Sharia in some jurisdictions within our country to mollify muslims who think ass-raping a little boy is fun or raping and beating and stoning to death a teenage girl or throwing acid on a woman is acceptable, I'd say morality - to that extent, at least - has suffered enough that it indeed points to our degeneration as a society.

      I could give an airborne rodent's rectum how some people want to dress or if men (or women) want to grab each other's asses. However, when a society begins to fail to protect its children and women from abuse, I think it is a sign that it is on its way out. Or, as with the muslims, needs to be shown the door.

  6. Curtis
    Thanks for your comments, I could'nt be as articulate.
    Because all sociaty is familiocentric[protection of mother
    and young],no-thing that is detromental to it's survival is open to acceptance without a discusson of its conciquences[Those who fail-doomed]!

  7. I have seen how the 'mindset' is used against so many. How many times have you seen a liberty minded person publicly assassinated by 'porn charges' or 'kiddie pics' on their harddrive? How many of those were installed 'after the fact' without the fact being true? No one really can answer that and those accused are defending themselves from all angles at that point.
    It is only another tool to be used against us, such as the IRS and other three letter acronym agencies. Anything to put the State on the 'Moral highground'.

  8. Dio,
    My thoughts exactly as i was reading through the comments and got to yours.


  9. Paul Revere's first wife was three months pregnant when he married her. This was common around 1700s Boston, according to the book "Paul Revere's Ride". And those folks were hardcore Puritans...

    1. And, it is said that up to 1/3 of the brides were pregnant in mid 18th century New England. But here is the rub... most men took responsibility not only of the woman they got pregnant and married them, but of the children they bore. And, another vast difference, the majority of them were not some one night stands.

      Also, Sarah bore their first child 8 months after they married... and they knew each other for several years before.

      Compared to today? We have little bastards running all over the place who don't even know who their daddy is. Or, they know who their daddy is, but daddy is never around and has no plans on taking care of their little Johnny's and Suzy's.

      Big difference between now and then.

  10. The KKK started the minutemen and then the Teabag Party. Now they control the GOP. Does anyone real believe that minorities will change the view of the GOP. The GOP just wants to send out coconuts out with the same old GOP message of protecting the rich, because they no longer hold a lead on civil liberties because they were the ones who came up and passed the Patriot Act, they were the ones who kidnapped and waterboarded, they were the ones who passed vaginal ultrasound bills throughout the nation (but leave the child abandoned after birth), they are the ones who love hating the gays, they were the ones who passed minority voter suppression laws right before a national election. I think the GOP has written off all minorities, but hey send out your coconuts, but don’t expect winning any elections. The GOP will reap what they have sown!


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.