The Old Days

[Kharak]

I am rather dismayed that people will, at the drop of a pin, try to envision the United States as in its Golden Age in that glorious era that we call, "The Fifties". Where every American had at least a ranch house, a God fearing family, two perfect little children, a wife that stayed at home and a husband that worked to protect his nuclear family from the ravages of Communism by doing his part in the American economy. Everyone spent time with eachother, had a minimum of television time, and things like 'abortion' and 'teen pregnancies' were unspoken. As long as people did their part, the world was just honky-dory. I issue the following as a public service announcement:

The old days can go to that other place, where unending hellfire awaits them. People can take their undying illusion that was, "The Fifties" and use it for toilet paper the next time they happen to be urging to. Well, I think this applies to any era too, in consideration, but there are circumstances.

I don't think many black Americans got to participate in this dream. I mean, they were beat up or executed for the virtue of simply being black, and that was often by cops too. Americans of Japanese descent? Remember, they served with us World War II but are still the enemy. And the Irish? Not in our town! Perhaps I am being too harsh though?

I mean, so what if there is a mob lynching: The world needs to maintain the status-quo. The suburbs are the pinnacle of society anyway, and those sharecropping Black folk are just a minority. Let the states handle it, they'll know how to take care of things just fine. As long as the white family is perserved and the supposed spiritual values are celebrated by the said demographic, everything back then was better; especially when they were the only real voting bloc (but alas, voting is a sacrifice for some).

So let's all rejoice at the perfection that was the Fifties, where people knew their place and we all got along as one happy family until that Eisenhower and his successors had to ruin it.

 

[Verv]

The downfall certainly was the violence towards blacks and minorities but that was not entirely pervasive in the US. In the North, we were making advancements.

Plus, if you really want to get 'we can't judge people' point of view fully rolling, what will people think of our generation which has allowed for the abortion of millions? What will they think of us who protested going to war to liberate a nation from enslavement under a mad dictator -- surely when the whole world has advanced to similar social standards we have today, Pres. Bush will be regarded as a triumphant hero for having ushered in an era of democracy.

If there was any golden age in the US it was not the fifties.

It was probably the days where we spread our railroads and expanded immensely while developing great technology, expanding our national holdings and international interests.

Or even it would be the period where we were a politically enlightened people in the late 18th century.

The 1950s are glorified because people were less morally confused and there was a healthy amount of direction, plus that was the first time Americans could afford nice things and the average person could contemplate going to do something as lofty as college.

People are sexually and morally confused, now, and many people are having a little chuckle at the USA and Europe.

As the Kygr and the Thai I climbed a mountain with today said, "You guys need religion and better families."

I agreed with the two Muslims.

They cannot help but look at what we are doing and feel pangs of sympathy that we have no sense of the most basic, natural morals.

 

[Kharak]

Plus, if you really want to get 'we can't judge people' point of view fully rolling, what will people think of our generation which has allowed for the abortion of millions? What will they think of us who protested going to war to liberate a nation from enslavement under a mad dictator -- surely when the whole world has advanced to similar social standards we have today, Pres. Bush will be regarded as a triumphant hero for having ushered in an era of democracy.

A mad dictator that we placed in there (like that one puppet in Vientam, remember?). Needless to say, our abortion rates have dropped since the sixties anyway, as well as teen pregnancy; the latter being lower than it was in the fifties. Mind you, the greatest economic growth period was during the Clinton administration of all things...

It was probably the days where we spread our railroads and expanded immensely while developing great technology, expanding our national holdings and international interests.

Chinese immigrants, native Americans and slaves sure didn't think so. The Civil War was divided too, post-reconstruction and the resurgance of racism was perhaps the best of times.

Or even it would be the period where we were a politically enlightened people in the late 18th century.

Yes, when we saved China from the Boxer Rebellion, the colonies from the Spanish, etc. The Indian wars were an especially lovely period of time where my ancestors were slaughtered. I harbor no personal distaste for their progeny though: I just can't go back and time and kill the guys responsible for Wounded Knee (yet).

The 1950s are glorified because people were less morally confused and there was a healthy amount of direction, plus that was the first time Americans could afford nice things and the average person could contemplate going to do something as lofty as college.

People are sexually and morally confused, now, and many people are having a little chuckle at the USA and Europe.

A little confused? The fifties were far more confused. Women were submissive creatures who knew their place, and clear repression was the only manner in which "family values" could be kept. Sexual confusion is when a clear homosexual cannot express their feelings; when they are 'monsters' for being human. People then, and perhaps today, are guilty of lying to themselves when they remove the human element. Victorian political correctness can take a hike: Homosexuals are a part of society and it is our duty to uphole their rights unto pain of death as any other American citizen. I do not care about the bleats of these 'sheep' that demand it be thrown to the wolves, they can fruitlessly martyr themselves if that is what they wish.

They cannot help but look at what we are doing and feel pangs of sympathy that we have no sense of the most basic, natural morals.

If the previous mentioned statements about 'sexual confusion' and the like are examples of these 'natural morals', then I will have no business with them. There is nothing more wholesome then taking those outdated ideals and mercifully crushing them underfoot.

 

[Verv]

A mad dictator that we placed in there (like that one puppet in Vientam, remember?). Needless to say, our abortion rates have dropped since the sixties anyway, as well as teen pregnancy; the latter being lower than it was in the fifties. Mind you, the greatest economic growth period was during the Clinton administration of all things...

Because of the internet bubble...

Chinese immigrants, native Americans and slaves sure didn't think so. The Civil War was divided too, post-reconstruction and the resurgance of racism was perhaps the best of times.

The native Americans were a non-issue before the railroads; the Chinese were screwed, sure, but for that matter so are many people.

It was an amazing time because of the physical growth of the Union, from sea to sea, and the creation of America as we know it.

Yes, when we saved China from the Boxer Rebellion, the colonies from the Spanish, etc. The Indian wars were an especially lovely period of time where my ancestors were slaughtered. I harbor no personal distaste for their progeny though: I just can't go back and time and kill the guys responsible for Wounded Knee (yet).

Your ancestors slaughtered each other. How do you feel about that?

A little confused? The fifties were far more confused. Women were submissive creatures who knew their place, and clear repression was the only manner in which "family values" could be kept. Sexual confusion is when a clear homosexual cannot express their feelings; when they are 'monsters' for being human. People then, and perhaps today, are guilty of lying to themselves when they remove the human element. Victorian political correctness can take a hike: Homosexuals are a part of society and it is our duty to uphole their rights unto pain of death as any other American citizen. I do not care about the bleats of these 'sheep' that demand it be thrown to the wolves, they can fruitlessly martyr themselves if that is what they wish.

What a funny opinion concerning 'confusion.'

Natural family roles are not confusing and it was a grand period of time because a working father could generally support his family.

And homosexuals have the right to life, liberty and property, of course; we should uphold that. But if you are talking about the right to "marry," I guess I can support civil unions. I do not think they have the right to hijack the name of traditional institutions rooted in religious beliefs.

If the previous mentioned statements about 'sexual confusion' and the like are examples of these 'natural morals', then I will have no business with them. There is nothing more wholesome then taking those outdated ideals and mercifully crushing them underfoot.

I'd like to see you try to 'crush them.' By crushing them you only succeed in creating more disharmonious societies.

Take some cues from the Chinese atheists -- there is natural morality.

The Korean word for heterosexual is 'natural sexual.' It is the most natural association there is, for a man and a woman to fall in love.

The Chinese symbol for 'good' is a man and woman standing next to one another -- in ancient times, what would be better than the proper sexual union of a man and a woman?

Let me just sum this up for you...

There is a natural order to things that must be followed for a society to do well.

- Elders must be respected
- Families must be strong
- Education must teach proper ideologies and values to the kids, not just scientific 'facts' or attempt to use literature and history classes to hammer home strange lessons, highlighting oddities in history to try to make unnatural positions glorified.
- Drugs must be regulated and crimes must be prosecuted.

All societies need a consensus on right and wrong.

Without a consensus, a society fails to be united.

What happens to even the strongest empires when they are not united or when they are too opulent and decadent is clear -- they wither and fold under the pressure of external forces.

Western Civilization to its core is flawed, and it is doomed, as it is no longer willing to face the challenges ahead of it and is no longer unified under similar cultural terms.

In fact, it murdered its old culture -- now it should be prepared to slowly be dragged to its death over the next hundreds of years and replaced by stronger societies like that of the Chinese civilization.

Read history.

It is like a clear pendulum, swinging back and forth.

Because you have swung so far to the wrong side of the left wing you can expect to be eaten alive by outside sources or go through strenuous growing pains under domestic revolutions.

 

[Kharak]

The native Americans were a non-issue before the railroads; the Chinese were screwed, sure, but for that matter so are many people.

It was an amazing time because of the physical growth of the Union, from sea to sea, and the creation of America as we know it.

Physical growth? The Apaches and Mexicans called . . . They want their land back. The Mongolian Empire had a more rapid expansion, did that justify empire?

Your ancestors slaughtered each other. How do you feel about that?

Ah yes, I acknowledge that, but I didn't say they were peaceful too? Or, even that I liked them. Did that make the Indian Wars any better?

Natural family roles are not confusing and it was a grand period of time because a working father could generally support his family.

I chuckled at that one. Working father? I daresay, only men farmed? Only men made shoes? Baskets? Textiles? Before innovations in agriculture in the 18th century, most people worked and lived on farms. The Industrial Revolution in turn gained infamy by its employment of women and children in unsafe working conditions because men could not afford them, but for different reasons other than 'natural roles'. In the Victorian Age, middle class men could support a family alone, and recreated a new belief that women weren't capable of working (which was utter nonsense). The role of housewife is a cultural presence, and definitely not natural. Civilization itself is the antithesis of the natural world: Morality is the creation of mankind.

And homosexuals have the right to life, liberty and property, of course; we should uphold that. But if you are talking about the right to "marry," I guess I can support civil unions. I do not think they have the right to hijack the name of traditional institutions rooted in religious beliefs.

Religion hijacked marriage. It's a contract, nothing more. Dowries and arranged marriage were built to strengthen the 'legacies' of families, and it became a sacrament after the fact.

I'd like to see you try to 'crush them.' By crushing them you only succeed in creating more disharmonious societies.

If you think the Civil War period was harmonious, or believe that any period I referenced to was, you are sorely mistaken. Empires are not built on harmony, they are built on hegemony and the capacity to leave morality to double standards.

The Chinese symbol for 'good' is a man and woman standing next to one another -- in ancient times, what would be better than the proper sexual union of a man and a woman?

In ancient times? If I recall, there is actually a very large area of erotic art that focuses on homosexuality from Greece and China from the relevant periods (yes, on pottery and such). In the former culture, women were often seen as lesser creatures anyway (as in women wore veils, could not leave the house without permission, etc), and the same could be said for certain periods of Chinese history. Athens may have worshiped Athen, but it was a blatantly patriarchal and society. But come on now, they had giant statues of penises on street corners, how on Earth can you possibly use Classical Greece in all your threads!?

Because you have swung so far to the wrong side of the left wing you can expect to be eaten alive by outside sources or go through strenuous growing pains under domestic revolutions.

That's cute, you think I'm left wing. I'm a commissar, not a hippie.

But I'll skip through the rest because it's the same thing you've been saying forever. Empires collapsing and what not, and perhaps already responded to. Empires are not moral to begin with, what's moral about slavery, murder and rape? Those are the values of empire, so why seek to resume them?

Furthermore, CONSENSUS? History lesson: The North and South couldn't agree on the color of the sky, New Yorkers couldn't get the Germans to speak English, and the founding fathers had to compromise every step of the way. This is not a land of consensus, nor is any culture really. If Republican Rome was a land of consensus, why the Social War? If China was a land of consensus, why the Era of the Three Kingdoms? If Britain was a land of consensus, why did Parliament and the Crown fight off eachother? If Korea was a land of consensus, why the big war? Why the different dialects, languages, customs, etc. Even the general themes become questionable: Americaa had federalist and anti-federalist parties from day one.

The old ways do not maintain an Empire, it's just hapless old fools who trick the younger generations into believing they even existed at all.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Someone called the Commissar wants to talk smack about the US during the 1950s. Don't tell me I'm the only one picking up on the irony.