← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie

Thread 7110

Thread ID: 7110 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2003-06-04

Wayback Archive

Robbie [OP]

2003-06-04 02:24 | User Profile

Some of the SF's are getting uppity over VNN's inclusion of some of Schopenhauer's works. Notice how one of them spells "misogynist".

[url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/threadid72305.php]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/threadid72305.php[/url]

Faust

2003-06-04 03:10 | User Profile

Robbie,

Not sue what to make of this...

**In conclusion, Mr. Schopenhauer - a violent, ill-tempered man, who was not even received by his relations - spent his life viewing everything as pessimistically as possible, hating women, admiring men, and, in the end dying, with his only life-long companion being a poodle dog (...one must wonder if this was because the dog was the only one who could tolerate him...). Indeed, one must feel pity for his close-minded, narrow view of life, women and men, families, and the world, and wonder if he would not have been so miserable if he had been a part of the (Western) lifestyle he detested, instead of spending his life denouncing and criticizing Western civilizations, and studying and admiring Eastern/Oriental cultures...

On Schopenhauer by Gabrielle LaFoote [url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1401]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/sho...sp?essayID=1401[/url]

**

Franco

2003-06-04 03:28 | User Profile

Mis...mis....mis-ODD-johnnie? Duh....Is dat worse than anti-Sem...Sem....Sem-wit-ism?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Robbie

2003-07-03 16:35 | User Profile

Stormfront continues to monitor VNN when any article offering even the slightest hint of critiquing women is detected.

[url=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77414]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread...&threadid=77414[/url]

Gabrielle

2004-02-20 03:53 | User Profile

Apart from Gabbie's piece, nobody has ever accused Schopenhauer of being a "sodomite".

LOL. AntiYuppie…I take it that you agree with poodle man, and that you find men to be handsome and possessing nice bodies, but find that woman have awful bodies and that there is nothing attractive about them, especially compared to men…? Is that what you are telling me? Doesn’t that sound even a little gay to you? That guy was a mental freak, who hated women! If there were a famous woman who wrote about men the way poodle man wrote about women, I wouldn’t take her seriously about anything. As far as Schopenhauer being a sodomite, if I were a man, I certainly wouldn’t want to be alone with him. I don’t know, though…maybe you feel comfortable with men that think like that.

BjarniTyrdal

2004-02-20 05:21 | User Profile

Gabrielle exhibits gross inability to debate. Anti Yuppie correctly points out that those that lack the means to understand Schopenhauer are forced to engage in ad hominem attack. He also points out that no one recognized as an authority on Schopenhauer claimed he was a homosexual.

Gabrielle helps to support that notion by using ad hominem attacks against both Schopenhauer and Anti Yuppie. She states that for Anti Yuppie to disagree with a baseless attack on a great philosopher by a nameless feminist on some web forum means that he must also be a homosexual. Words escape my effort describe just how brainless one must be to advance such an assertion.

Gabrielle

2004-02-20 16:39 | User Profile

This garbage is the typical way in which simpletons attack great minds. Unable to fathom (and thus meaningfully critique) Schopenhauer's philosophy, Miss LaFoote choses to instead engage in ad hominem by focusing on Schopenhauer's personal life. She then goes on to compare Schopenhauer to "Talmudic Jews"! (tell that to Uncle Adolf, who carried a copy of The World as Will and Representation with him during WW1)

“This garbage is the typical way in which simpletons attack great minds.”
LOL. You are the simpleton, and a pompous one at that.

Schopenhauer's philosophy, Miss LaFoote choses to instead engage in ad hominem by focusing on Schopenhauer's personal life.

Wrong, I quoted poodle man’s own words, and they were relative to his character (or lack there of). Now, if I really did as you falsely accused me of, I would have some facts about his personal life that were irrelevant, like the following: his father killed himself; his grandmother tried to kill herself, and ended up spending the rest of her life in the nut house. Or I could talk about the time the rich, spoiled, know-it-all (who lived off daddys’s money) deliberately pushed an old woman down the steps of the boarding house in which he lived just because she was talking. He later had to pay restitution to her, but he was complexly unrepentant; he said he wished she died. I am sure that you think this is just fine…after all, she was just a mere woman. Now THAT is engaging in ad hominem attacks by focusing on Schopenhauer's ridiculous personal life (which, though I was not doing that previously, is none the less interesting and does provide incite into the disturbed workings of his mind).

She then goes on to compare Schopenhauer to "Talmudic Jews!

Yes, I did, and rightly so! The lunatic Schopenhauer said that white men should treat white women the SAME way Oriental men treat Oriental women – like dogs! This race-hating self-admiring ‘philosopher’ hated white women. I’m sorry, but, in my mind, anyone who hates the opposite sex as much as he did is completely unstable. From his own writings he has condemned himself, not from mine.

[Just FYI, I would NEVER trust a woman who despised men and thought them ugly and unattractive, yet found women to be hot and/or attractive; nor would I trust a woman who suggested that men should be treated like subhuman animals. I would see such a person as the unstable lunatic that she was, and would not bother with anything she wrote or said, because it would be as warped as she was.]

What little information is in there is largely incorrect, for instance Schopenhauer hardly "hated" western civilization (he credits Kant, Plato, and medieval mystics to be precursors to his thought as much as any Eastern philosophy), he simply hated most of his contemporaries and what western civilization was becoming.

Just like most of those nutty German philosophers he rejected not only his God, but also his white heritage. And don’t give me that rubbish, “he simply hated most of his contemporaries and what western civilization was becoming.” He entirely rejected his heritage and fully embraced Eastern culture. I suggest you brush up on your Schopenhauer…you will plainly see that that pig rejected his own culture and, consequently, his own race – a traitor, through and through. But, of course, that didn’t stop the rogue from living off of daddy’s western money in western comforts.

I must return to other things now, but I will answer your new post and BjarniTyrdal’s later. Have a good day! :)

Gabrielle

2004-02-20 21:47 | User Profile

Where to begin...

Since you have chosen to substitute juvenile innuendo about people's sexuality for discussion, I would suggest that you might be more at home reading National Enquirer or Cosmopolitan than the contents of this forum. Please forgive me for wasting my time, but I will post a reply to your post for the benefit of impartial readers.

LOL. Thanks, but I don’t bother with magazines, especially those kind...

First, we inhabit a society that is so obsessed with sex and so saturated with sexual imagery that it is natural that just about any expression of aesthetic admiration or personal affection is these days taken as an expression of sexual desire. The fact of the matter is, aesthetics is quite a separate matter from sexual desire, one can find a person aesthetically appealing without the slightest sexual desire, just as one often finds aesthetically unremarkable individuals sexually attractive. That Schopenhauer found the male form more aesthetically pleasing means no more than a man who finds waterfalls or trees more aesthetically pleasing than people. I will also add that several biographies of Schopenhauer characterize him as a womanizer in his youth and mention at least one illegitimate child that he fathered.

Don’t be a Pecksniffian liar; you know darned well he praised male bodies and was, at the same time, quite disgusted with female bodies; to compare with a person favoring waterfalls to trees is pure jewishness. Either you are not too bright or are a deliberate deceiver. Furthermore, you know that I was not going about his sex life; another instance of your (dis)honesty...

More important than any of this, however, is a general response of "so what?" that we ought to have to questions about the personal lives of any thinker or artist. Personally, I couldn't care less what any artist, philosopher, or scientist who I admire did or didn't do in the bedroom. Once again, the degenerate Hollywood society we inhabit substitutes gossip for scholarship and thinking, so instead of discussing a man's ideas people prattle about who he did or didn't sleep with. During the past few years, I have seen several inane books passing for "scholarship" about (variously) a "gay Hitler" a "gay Nietzsche" a "gay Lincoln" and a "gay" just about everybody else. All I can say is that such things are a testament to how low we have sunk and how base our culture is that the only thing people can find to talk about is a man's sex life.

LOL. What a Pecksniffian you are! You know this has nothing to do with what I was writing about. I was focusing on this sick puppy’s warped, unnatural hatred of women. I would appreciate if you would stick to the subject and stop playing games. (Thank you.)

I will finally add that in your reply you chose to ignore my comments about the importance of Western vs. Eastern thought in Schopenhauer's philosophy to instead post innuendo about S's (and my) sexuality. Nevertheless, lest a reader believe the drivel you posted, I will add for the record that Schopenhauer's thought was very much part of the Western cannon, and it borrows extensively from Plato, Meister Eckhart, and Kant. As for the influence of Oriental thought, it should be pointed out that most of his Eastern influences were Persian or Indo-Aryan: Brahmin Hinduism, Buddhism, and to a lesser extent Zoroastrianism. In many ways these cultures and their ideas are far less alien to the West than (for instance) Semitic Christianity. In this regard, I consider Schopenhauer to be the equivalent of the Church Fathers of yesteryear, who introduced and assimilated Christian thought through the filter of a Western worldview. He did the same for Hindu and Buddhist thought by integrating them with Kantian epistemology.

He embraced the eastern (nonwhite) cultures, and you are simply twisting words to deceive yourself and others, so that you may continue to worship this ‘great mind’ [more appropriately, emotionally disturbed and rationally challenged…]. Anyone who reads his writings with half an ounce of honesty will clearly admit that he rejected his western cultures. If you want a delusion, Schopenhauer is as good as anyone else, I’m sure – but, if we’re going to delve into the realm of fantasy when choosing our heroes, why not preach to us of the virtues of Al Sharpton or Martin Luther King Jr. (as these are equally as credible…)?

For his efforts, he was admired by a wide spectrum of first-rate minds, from Nietzsche and Wagner to Darwin to Conrad. I think that alone is testament to the achievements of a man that some muddled internet feminist choses to spit on.>
LOL. Let’s not even start on horse hugger – he is another ‘fine’ example of a traitor to western ideas and ideals; even Nietzsche’s own sister was appalled by his lack of loyalty to white people, and so changed his work (which she should not have done, as, had she left it be, it would be easier to prove what an anti-western schmuck he was…)!! As to being a feminist, I think not – I am simply fed up with all the gynophobia, as I am with the unending Hollywood androphobia and heterophobia. Enough is enough…

Gabrielle

2004-02-20 21:49 | User Profile

Gabrielle exhibits gross inability to debate. Anti Yuppie correctly points out that those that lack the means to understand Schopenhauer are forced to engage in ad hominem attack. He also points out that no one recognized as an authority on Schopenhauer claimed he was a homosexual.

Gabrielle helps to support that notion by using ad hominem attacks against both Schopenhauer and Anti Yuppie. She states that for Anti Yuppie to disagree with a baseless attack on a great philosopher by a nameless feminist on some web forum means that he must also be a homosexual. Words escape my effort describe just how brainless one must be to advance such an assertion.

I do not engage in ad hominem attacks, and I already covered this in my response to Anti Yuppie. LOL. ‘baseless attack on a great philosopher by a nameless feminist’ Now who is engaged in ad hominem attack? I am not a feminist; no more, however, am I a moron, who believes everything taught me, by any one…I tend to think.

Words escape my effort describe just how brainless one must be to advance such an assertion

Thank God for small favors. ;) Ahem Did I say that? :o