Wokes promote a degenerate society not a liberal society

[ArchibaultNew]

Hey guys,
I have realize this and wanted you guys to expand on it.

Quick Example: Liberal Society: Playboy cover with hot women.
Degenerate Society: Playboy cover with trans activist.

Liberal Society: Race mixed with whoever, you want.
Degenerate Society: Race mixing is internalized racism, don't do it.

Liberal Society: Picking up women, flirtation normal and healthy part of the human experience.
Degenerate Society: Picking up women is wrong and you should feel ashame, you are invading their personal space.

[Outcast9428]

Picking up women is also degenerate. Liberal societies allow violent porn to twist the minds of our young people and destroy the beauty of sex by turning it into a violent, painful, and grotesque perversion of sex.

A liberal society is a degenerate society. Playboy magazines with hot girls exist in traditional societies too. If anything traditional societies are even more supportive of female beauty then liberal societies are. Look at how Japan and Thailand have been for decades.

[shawnberwick]

Picking up women is also degenerate. Liberal societies allow violent porn to twist the minds of our young people and destroy the beauty of sex by turning it into a violent, painful, and grotesque perversion of sex.

A liberal society is a degenerate society. Playboy magazines with hot girls exist in traditional societies too. If anything traditional societies are even more supportive of female beauty then liberal societies are. Look at how Japan and Thailand have been for decades.

How are Playboy magazines congruent with traditional values?

[shawnberwick]

Picking up women is also degenerate. Liberal societies allow violent porn to twist the minds of our young people and destroy the beauty of sex by turning it into a violent, painful, and grotesque perversion of sex.

A liberal society is a degenerate society. Playboy magazines with hot girls exist in traditional societies too. If anything traditional societies are even more supportive of female beauty then liberal societies are. Look at how Japan and Thailand have been for decades.

How are Playboy magazines congruent with traditional values?

[shawnberwick]

Picking up women is also degenerate. Liberal societies allow violent porn to twist the minds of our young people and destroy the beauty of sex by turning it into a violent, painful, and grotesque perversion of sex.

A liberal society is a degenerate society. Playboy magazines with hot girls exist in traditional societies too. If anything traditional societies are even more supportive of female beauty then liberal societies are. Look at how Japan and Thailand have been for decades.

How are Playboy magazines congruent with traditional values? They are magazine for men to masturbate to pictures of nude women. They also have articles supporting sexual liberation, which you've said you are opposed to.

Japan has had a huge problem with CP for a long time, and only made it illegal to posses in 2014.

Thailand is notorious around the world for prostitution.

[WanderingProtagonist]

How about you guys stop pretending to be perfect? You guys act like you're better. Every time I see people complaining about degeneracy it makes me wonder where you even live. And if you are guilty of traveling abroad just to have sex with women, or you're dating a lot of women you have no interest in committing to, then you are a damn degenerate your own damn self. Just admit that you people are boring as hell anything that isn't "normal" you call it filth or degenerate while you hang out on a site where men openly admit to traveling for sex tourism reasons.

[WanderingProtagonist]

How about you guys stop pretending to be perfect? You guys act like you're better. Every time I see people complaining about degeneracy it makes me wonder where you even live. And if you are guilty of traveling abroad just to have sex with women, or you're dating a lot of women you have no interest in committing to, then you are a damn degenerate your own damn self. Just admit that you people are boring as hell anything that isn't "normal" you call it filth or degenerate while you hang out on a site where men openly admit to traveling for sex tourism reasons. And race mixing isn't degeneracy but it's still suicide. Unless you get off to the idea of taking women from men in other countries. What the hell do you think race fetishism is?

[Lucas88]

Hey guys,
I have realize this and wanted you guys to expand on it.

Quick Example: Liberal Society: Playboy cover with hot women.
Degenerate Society: Playboy cover with trans activist.

Liberal Society: Race mixed with whoever, you want.
Degenerate Society: Race mixing is internalized racism, don't do it.

Liberal Society: Picking up women, flirtation normal and healthy part of the human experience.
Degenerate Society: Picking up women is wrong and you should feel ashame, you are invading their personal space.

I think I understand the meaning of your post. Liberal society wasn't always as it is today and in the past was something entirely different.

Liberalism in its original form wasn't characterized by the left-leaning "progressive" values which are touted as "liberalism" today. Rather liberalism's original manifestation was rooted in the Enlightenment worldview and espoused the principles of individual freedom, a market economy, republicanism and the rule of law. It was a system envisaged with the idea that every man may live freely and in pursuit of his own interests and happiness and with his own reason as his primary guiding principle and was therefore opposed to the tyranny and obscurantism of the premodern societies which preceded it.

I myself am inclined to believe that this development in its original form was largely a positive thing. I know that some people here support notions of traditionalism but I think I'd rather live in a relatively free liberal society than in a medieval kingdom ruled by corrupt royal and theocratic assholes with the power to control every aspect of our lives.

Unfortunately this same Enlightenment liberalism was subverted by big business and the Zionist cabal and then was slowly denatured from within and transformed into the vile "progressivism" of today whose true goal is to invert all good principles, bring about a regression of values and steep our societies in chaos. Even the name consists of an inversion of truth.

I don't think that a truly liberal society in its original sense of freedom and individual expression was a bad thing. In fact even just a few decades ago like in the 80s plenty of people in societies based on liberal principles were decent and things weren't anywhere near as messed up as they are today. The cause of today's widespread degeneracy is not liberalism as such but rather social engineering. Most of this chaos has been intentionally manufactured and popularized by a hidden group of criminals for their own nefarious purposes and their version of "liberalism" is their vehicle of choice.

The following is a little reflection of mine:

In a true liberal society people are free to pursue their own interests, seek out their own experiences, build their own lives and cultivate their own wisdom and virtues. They also have the freedom to pursue their own degenerate interests if they like but this is typically done behind closed doors and without disturbing public decency. In other words freedom is more organic and everything unfolds more naturally.

In a false liberal or "progressive" society on the other hand social engineers conspire to push all kinds of destructive trends in a forced manner, to foist their unwholesome ideals upon everyone else in the name of a misplaced vision of "progress", to rub their degeneracy in everybody's face regardless of whether most people want it or not, to demonize and censor anybody who doesn't accept the agendas that they are pushing. It is closer to neo-Marxist subversion (see the Frankfurt School, mostly Jewish and covertly supported by the CIA) and is not truly liberal at all.

[Outcast9428]

Picking up women is also degenerate. Liberal societies allow violent porn to twist the minds of our young people and destroy the beauty of sex by turning it into a violent, painful, and grotesque perversion of sex.

A liberal society is a degenerate society. Playboy magazines with hot girls exist in traditional societies too. If anything traditional societies are even more supportive of female beauty then liberal societies are. Look at how Japan and Thailand have been for decades.

How are Playboy magazines congruent with traditional values? They are magazine for men to masturbate to pictures of nude women. They also have articles supporting sexual liberation, which you've said you are opposed to.

Japan has had a huge problem with CP for a long time, and only made it illegal to posses in 2014.

Thailand is notorious around the world for prostitution.

I don’t like the company or Hugh Hefner since Hugh himself was a massive class A degenerate but I don’t have a problem with naked women or masturbation. I don’t think it’s even physically possible not to masturbate and I am also of the opinion, and my parents were of the same opinion when I was young, that trying not to masturbate to something healthy like a naked girl will turn you into a degenerate who masturbates to unhealthy things. Also there’s never really been any restrictions on portraying naked girls. Playboy magazines and pin up girls were popular back in the 1950s and if you want to go older then that, the Renaissance era is absolutely filled with paintings of naked girls in sensual poses. I’m not concerned with that kind of stuff. I’m concerned with the proliferation of extreme pornography that has occurred in recent years. Porn containing BDSM, bestiality, scat and other sick acts needs to be banned. And yes Japan does need to fix up its pornography laws.

Thailand on the other hand actually does ban these kinds of pornography. Not only is pornography of the acts illegal but the acts themselves are illegal as well. As far as the prostitution industry there goes. Prostitution has rarely been made illegal in traditional societies. Usually it only becomes illegal if a new STD starts spreading. However prostitution was legal throughout the entire medieval era and in 19th century America it was legal as well. Laws seriously attempting to control prostitution were not envoked until the 1910s.

That being said I often have thought to myself that prostitution maybe shouldn’t allow penetrative acts. Perhaps prostitution should be more like it’s done in US strip clubs where you get a sensual lap dance and can touch the girl and oral sex could be fine but vaginal intercourse carries too many risks.

[shawnberwick]

@Outcast9428

Seems like I misunderstood what you meant by traditional, it seems that you literally mean pre-1980s society?

When I'm referring to traditionalism I'm talking about traditionalist conservatism, which is based on set of values rather than a historical reference. Sexual modesty being high on their value hierarchies - and traditionalist conservatives would not advocate Playboy, stripclubs and prostitution.

The renaissance nude paintings IMO were more erotic or beauty oriented than Playboy. Playboy IMO is pornographic. I think Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said it best (I'm paraphrasing); erotic art focuses on the person, narrative, composition, and lighting, whereas pornography focuses on the body/objectification with basic artistic techniques.

(Though modern Playboy IMO has become a mix of pornography and erotic art. They've gone out of their way to completely change how they take photos. hiring a lot of female photographers, and having someone on staff to make sure the models are comfortable and not pushed to do anything they are uncomfortable with. Ana Dias' photos are a great example of the mix. )

[Outcast9428]

@Outcast9428

Seems like I misunderstood what you meant by traditional, it seems that you literally mean pre-1980s society?

When I'm referring to traditionalism I'm talking about traditionalist conservatism, which is based on set of values rather than a historical reference. Sexual modesty being high on their value hierarchies - and traditionalist conservatives would not advocate Playboy, stripclubs and prostitution.

The renaissance nude paintings IMO were more erotic or beauty oriented than Playboy. Playboy IMO is pornographic. I think Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said it best (I'm paraphrasing); erotic art focuses on the person, narrative, composition, and lighting, whereas pornography focuses on the body/objectification with basic artistic techniques.

(Though modern Playboy IMO has become a mix of pornography and erotic art. They've gone out of their way to completely change how they take photos. hiring a lot of female photographers, and having someone on staff to make sure the models are comfortable and not pushed to do anything they are uncomfortable with. Ana Dias' photos are a great example of the mix. )

Well... Go back a little further to more like pre-1965 society and you'd be correct. I'd argue that this is, in-fact, traditionalist conservatism. Now of course some traditionalist conservatives do oppose all erotic imagery. But I would argue it is not integral to traditionalist conservatism because it has no historical basis. Some traditional societies have banned prostitution. None of these societies have remained traditional for very long. First it was done in the 17th century which resulted in the Enlightenment values and a surge or "libertinism" to emerge. While I would not call 17th and 18th century society "liberal" I will remark that it was the society from which liberalism was birthed. Similarly as I mentioned, prostitution was banned in the 1910s as well and society almost immediately started gradually becoming more liberal.

Some traditionalists I've met have suggested that legalizing prostitution would bring back traditionalism. I think this is rather naive. Legalizing prostitution will not bring back a traditional society. Prostitution fits in well with both a liberal and a traditional society so I wouldn't say legal prostitution is inherently tied to traditionalism... However, it is a much needed outlet in a traditional society if that makes sense. Once you prohibit prostitution, you have tied up every outlet for unmarried sexuality and because you didn't provide one for people, the people will make one themselves. While I certainly encourage as much sexuality to be done within marriage as possible, one also has to be practical. An unmarried, rebellious teenage boy is not going to listen to his parents or the church. It is best he release his sexual frustration through a regulated, controlled atmosphere. He might be more inclined to listen to traditional sexual norms as well if the logical basis for them is presented and he is given an outlet for his sexual frustration as well and you do not present it to him simply as "you will not have sex." That is bound to be an unpopular argument to an audience of teenagers.

I would argue there isn't much difference between this image...



And this one...

[shawnberwick]

@Outcast9428

IME traditionalist conservatives don't mind erotic art, but there is a different between erotic art and pornography. So they don't necessarily oppose sexual imagery. Roger Scruton is probably the most famous contemporary conservative philosopher (RIP) and he argued in support of erotic art, and against pornography.

Regarding the images...

I don't mean to sound pretentious, but I can understand if you haven't practiced/researched art, or the philosophy of art why you don't see a difference.

The first's focus in on the body, it's primary intention IMO is to be arousing first and artistic second.

The second image has much skill and time spent on composition, along with a seemingly narrative contrast of sensuality and decadence whilst maids/servants are found in the background doing work dressed in unflattering clothes. The primary intention IMO is to be artistic first, and arousing second.


Edit:

This is a documentary about Beauty in art and architecture by Roger Scruton. If you skip to approx 25:00 mins he talks about his philosophy of Erotic art.. https://vimeo.com/549715999

[Outcast9428]

@Outcast9428

IME traditionalist conservatives don't mind erotic art, but there is a different between erotic art and pornography. So they don't necessarily oppose sexual imagery. Roger Scruton is probably the most famous contemporary conservative philosopher (RIP) and he argued in support of erotic art, and against pornography.

Regarding the images...

I don't mean to sound pretentious, but I can understand if you haven't practiced/researched art, or the philosophy of art why you don't see a difference.

The first's focus in on the body, it's primary intention IMO is to be arousing first and artistic second.

The second image has much skill and time spent on composition, along with a seemingly narrative contrast of sensuality and decadence whilst maids/servants are found in the background doing work dressed in unflattering clothes. The primary intention IMO is to be artistic first, and arousing second.


Edit:

This is a documentary about Beauty in art and architecture by Roger Scruton. If you skip to approx 25:00 mins he talks about his philosophy of Erotic art.. https://vimeo.com/549715999

That maybe so but the content is pretty much the same. A person living in 1510 might find this painting a lot more exciting then you or I would given that we’re accustomed to more advanced forms of erotic imagery.

Some traditionalist conservatives do think all porn should be banned. I don’t think naked girls are really a problem. Nor do I think sex scenes like you’d find in R rated movies are a problem. I’ve argued for years that conservatives should try and take control of the porn industry instead of eliminating it entirely so that we may produce films that emphasize marital love and affection through pornography. I strongly believe that leaving any kind of void is dangerous and creates much more potential for exploitation by bad actors then if you take control of it yourself and fulfill the demand without catering to consumer greed.

Pornography in this way could even serve as a propaganda outlet which promotes the sexy side of marriage and romantic love. With only healthy forms of sexuality being what people are exposed to, you will leave no room for deviance to step in and assert itself as the room is already being used.

[ArchibaultNew]

Guys thanks for your contribution. Here's a bunch of thoughts on the topic maybe you guys can choose whichever you find the most interesting. To me the key concept is that of "underclass."

Some Background

I read the Rookh Kshatriya articles that Lucas suggested. I agree with Rookh that Anglo's have never had a truly "Traditionalist Society" or even a "Patriarchal Society" if we were to compare it to Roman or Middle Ages French even Italian type of society. I think the Anglo society is a "Puritanical: and low-key "female worship" type of society. Because of the whole "gender segregation" that Rookh talks about. Where young Anglos grow up in public schools and end up running the country have never been around women hence they tend to worship them as opposed to seeing a more realistic portrayal. Hence when they worship Romantic/Idealistic love and then hence when that doesn't meet their standards, especially nowadays there's the whole "red pill" movement is something that most people around the world already know.

I'm going to distinguish between a "Patriarchical Society" and an "Anglo Society"

Thoughts on Anglo Society

The main idea is that Anglos in their societies have a "male underclass" and they are not doing anything to help them.

Anglos tend to bash men and worship women. They worship women for the sole fact that they are women. Meanwhile, they give their men a hard time and their men have to prove themselves. The whole "alpha" and "beta" concept comes to mind. Other societies(Swedish) have similar concepts but not to the extent of Anglo Society where they see their men in more negative terms.

Moreover, Anglos accept a male underclass whereas other people do not. Maybe since the Norman Conquest Anglos never shook off the whole notion that there are "Lords" and "Workers" The Lord is worshiped just because he is Lord and not due to any merit. He didn't earn his lordship but inherited it. In American society we see this more with puritanism where some people are "blessed" and others are "damned" God blessed successful and rich people "a priori" and hence they are successful. If you are unsuccessful that means that you are "damned" and there's nothing you can do about it. This works well with capitalism since the idea is that the poor are poor because they choose their poverty. Hence no money should spend on social programs [/b]

Extra note on other societies
I would like to add that in East Asia like Japan, Korea, and even other Latin American, and Eastern Europe society unlike what they tell you. There's no "male underclass" because if you can't get laid you can go to a hooker at a brothel. Moreover, some women will ask you for money and will hook up with you. Anglo women will not do this for the most part since they are taught that if you have to rely on money to get laid you are a loser. Even in more contemporary times, Anglo SBs shame their Sugar Daddies and are taught to see them as "pay pigs" while women in Eastern Europe do not see them that way. Since it established that men provide for men. While Anglo women think that only losers are meant to provide for women in any way and hence the men who use money should be taken advantage of.

Meanwhile, the Anglo societies don't have that. At least America has both illegal and stigmatized prostitution. Not only is it illegal to go to a brothel. But you are also "shamed" if you were to travel abroad and visit a hooker. You are a "loser" and will remain so. This reminds me of English society where they say "you can't change your class" or in America where your ethnicity is very fixed, meanwhile in Brazil and Spain people have more leeway. Anglo societies tend to be much more "deterministic" hence why people accept things. There's no "revolution" like the French revolution.

A True Patriachical Society
I would say Argentina in the 1990s would be a truly patriarchal society.
-Men can have sexual liberalism but women are more restricted. Most women are traditionalist but only a few minority are the liberal one's. I heard the some Eastern Europe one's are like this.
-Men can go to brothels.
-Men have a traditional wife.

[shawnberwick]

That maybe so but the content is pretty much the same. A person living in 1510 might find this painting a lot more exciting then you or I would given that we’re accustomed to more advanced forms of erotic imagery.

The content isn't the same to those who practice/research art, that's what I (and Roger Scruton) was pointing out. We're not denying that both images are arousing, we are saying that the context (and impact) is different.

Erotic art = Subject, composition, lighting, narrative first. Arousal second.

Pornography = Arousal first. Basic artistic technique second.

R rated movies are (the good ones at least) art first and arousal second. Porn movies are arousal first, and then basic filmmaking techniques second. e.g.

It's like the difference between the movies Black Swan and Debbie Does Dallas, or the series Game Of Thrones and Bang Bus. Both have arousing scenes, but they are within a different context.