← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 7678 | Posts: 80 | Started: 2003-06-28
2003-06-28 06:28 | User Profile
What are your thoughts? I personally support John Bryant's ideas regarding sexuality, see [url=http://www.thebirdman.org/]http://www.thebirdman.org/[/url]
Regards,
Ares
2003-06-28 13:58 | User Profile
Birdman Bryant is a libertarian of sorts, although he's difficult to classify completely. For the record I'm a daily reader of his webpage, and in general find his eye for the important stories exceptional. I even confess to taking a couple of peeks at his girl of the day (but only for purposes of scientific research!)
The fundamental error of libertarians is that they believe that people exist only as individuals, that there is no such thing as the collective "society" in an organismic sense, and they conclude from this that only the individual and his "fulfillment" are really important, reducing the role of state and society to one of facilitator and guarantors of the quest for individual happiness. I think that the best summation in the popular mind are the words the protaganist of Ayn Rand's (Alisa Rosenberg's) "Fountainhead" spoke to his jury: "there is no collective brain."
This is profoundly wrong. I believe that evolutionary psychology and computer simulations of socieites are revealing that mankind is not made up NOT of individuals bumping against each other like Newtonian atoms, but RATHER is made up of collectives that are usually related genetically and are held together by the symbolic cement of myth, cult, and language. The tribe, and not the individual, is the evolutionary unit of selection. David S. Wilson compares man to hydras - individuals whose group existence is so interwoven that they form a single organism, and the comparison strikes me as fitting. Thus, morality is the code governing individual behaviour that is deemed by reason and experience to be most conducive to the group's prosperity. It is the group, and not the individual, that is of paramount importance.
Thus, Birdman errs because he proceeds from the mistaken assumption that the individual's interests are not only paramount but the only ones that can really exist. That's demonstrably false. The individual is free only insofar as the individual's freedom serves the collective; this I say again is an empirical fact of nature, and most emphatically not merely a subjective value judgement. Now, that said, I think that reason and experience indicate that a broad measure of individual freedom is best conducive to group flourishing, but reasonable minds can clearly disagree on the exact boundaries between individual and collective interests. As I wrote on a previous thread, I read Jefferson to mean the same thing; i.e. that he saw the collective benefits of broad individual liberty as a scientific discovery, much like Adam Smith's discovery of the multiplier effects of free trade. Nobody expected that result, but science reveals that this is the way it is. But, IMHO, he didn't see freedom as an end in itself, but rather as the best way to secure the survival of his beloved people.
But I digress.
Pornography is, in my opinion, one of those issues in the grey area, where one could reasonably argue either way. Here's my take on it.
To repeat, the issue is not individual fulfillment, but the health of the collective, and I proceed from that basic assumption. Now, on the downside, an acceptance of pornography appears to be concurrent with the acceptance of divorce, homosexuality, alternative family forms, and conversely with an increase of child abuse, neglect, falling educational standards and perhaps most ominously a falling birthrate. In short, it seems to be part and parcel of a poison pill that our European, Christian and English-speaking society swallowed - what? - 40 years ago.
I freely admit that this concurrence in time doesn't prove that pornography caused any of those baleful results, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to strongly suspect that it was at least in some way bound up with them, and besides, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that they weren't. Again, the individual's rights are of secondary importance, and so the burden of proof is, so to speak, on the individual proponent of pornography to show that its worth the risk to society.
On the other hand, state and society must do their own cost-benefit analysis of whether its worth its time and resources to combat it. After all, individuals will always be attracted to it, and the growth of the internet and copying technology make it nearly impossible to control via criminalization.
I think that these things are best handled by social opinion, with the state playing its role in forming the public's feelings against it. The state should also ban pornography if the making of it itself constitutes a crime, such as child pornography that entails the sexual exploitation of children, or at the extremes snuff films.
But the Birdman is just plain wrong that pornography is the "flower" of our civilization. It is implicated by association with child abuse, marriage breakdown, and low fertility rates. He hasn't carried his heavy burden of proof that pornography is not a very negative thing from the perspective of the group, and he certainly hasn't shown that it's a positively good thing. It is presumptively a very bad thing for society, and I dare say rather obviously tears at its very fabric. Even if pornography lead to one instance of child abuse, it could offer nothing except individual indulgence as a value counterweight, and as I've said, individual indulgence counts for nought; again, as a simple fact of nature.
Ares, I suspect that you're proceeding from the individualist paradigm that permeates our culture, and I ask you to consider the question from the point of view of society-as-organism.
I look forward to hearing your comments.
Regards,
Walter
2003-06-28 15:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 28 2003, 13:58 * *To repeat, the issue is not individual fulfillment, but the health of the collective, and I proceed from that basic assumption.ÃÂ Now, on the downside, an acceptance of pornography appears to be concurrent with the acceptance of divorce, homosexuality, alternative family forms, and conversely with an increase of child abuse, neglect, falling educational standards and perhaps most ominously a falling birthrate.ÃÂ In short, it seems to be part and parcel of a poison pill that our European, Christian and English-speaking society swallowed - what? - 40 years ago.ÃÂ
I freely admit that this concurrence in time doesn't prove that pornography caused any of those baleful results, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to strongly suspect that it was at least in some way bound up with them, and besides, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that they weren't.**
Well it is well established from a number of viewpoints that unhindered promiscuity are subversive of society's communitarian values, whether from a "Judeo-Christian" standpoint or from the scientific viewpoint of evolutionary psychology. Not only that they are, but that they were recognized as such by cultural Marxists, especially of the Frankfurt School lineage from Lukacks and Reich, through the early Frankfurt School to Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization.
The values of radical individualism in general, such as in relationship to sexuality, are viewed by MacDonald as one of the things in an elite that is always subversive of society. In particular MacDonald described the subversion of traditional restraints on sexual activity as one of the ways Judaism has undermined its host cultures.
This happens through the integral role such restraints play, especially among the lower strata in achievement and intelligence, in asserting and implementing societal interest and support of high investment parenting and supporting behaviors (such as marriage) among this lower strata.
I don't see how you can dispute the close ties between sexual permissiveness and such low-investment parenting related behaviors such as illegitimacy, divorce, and parental indifference. They are part and parcel of the mentality of radical individualism reflected in the lower classes.
2003-06-28 15:50 | User Profile
The Libertarian Party leans to the left. By default, they want bigger government and increased social programs. That's the result of being for open-immigration of poor socialists to the Welfare States of America. At the very least, a real libertarian would insist on dismantling the welfare state before opening the boarders.
The Libertarian Party, by default, also supports a kind of tyranny of degenerate scum over decent people. That's the result of giving carte blanche to homosexuals, prostitutes, drug users, etc. in a community. At the very least, a real libertarian would insist on guaranteeing the right to discriminate before insisting that all "victimless crime" be legalized.
Pornography should be legal. But, it should also be restricted in a manner to protect minors and those in the general public who do not want to be exposed to pornography. And, of course, decent people should be allowed to discriminate against those who want to live pornographic lives. That means I shouldn't have to hire anyone who practices activities I disapprove of.
If the Libertarian Party were really libertarian, their top concerns wouldn't be to facilitate immigration and legalize prostitution. It would be to dismantle the welfare state and to restore the right to discriminate.
2003-06-28 16:01 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 28 2003, 13:58 * ** I believe that evolutionary psychology and computer simulations of socieites are revealing that mankind is not made up NOT of individuals bumping against each other like Newtonian atoms, but RATHER is made up of collectives that are usually related genetically and are held together by the symbolic cement of myth, cult, and language. **
Libertarianism and your idea of a collective are not so incompatible. In a truly libertarian society people would be free not to support or tolerate those who are destructive to the collective. The result is that the destructive people would not come into the collective in the first place. Mexicans would stay in Mexico and youth woudn't be recruited by homosexuals in the first place.
2003-06-28 17:02 | User Profile
I'm a conservative Christian, and I'll be the 1st to admit: I'm a prude. I felt bad running "around" with my old H.S. girlfriend, part of that "Protestant Guilt" stuff (even tho we dated 6 years)
If I could run society, I'd get rid of pornography. How? Make people disgusted by it, so there's no demand for the product. I realize you can't FORCE people to behave in any way, but some of that stuff is so raunchy that it's entirely unhealthy.
Like food, when you start eating a lot, you need more to satisfy you. Slippery slope argument. As for prostitution, any guy that pays for sex with a dirty, disgusting possibly disease-ridden whore is pathetic. Just my $.02
-Jay
2003-06-28 17:15 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]What Price Freedom?[/SIZE]
Walter Yannis said: [color=red]"The fundamental error of libertarians is that they believe that people exist only as individuals, that there is no such thing as the collective "society" in an organismic sense, and they conclude from this that only the individual and his "fulfillment" are really important, reducing the role of state and society to one of facilitator and guarantors of the quest for individual happiness."[/color]
One of the primary reasons Ayn Rand rejected the idea of the "state" and the "collective" as the guiding force in determining how people should govern their lives is that she knew (and rightly so) that more often than not the "state" or the "collective" could be controlled by dictators (Adolf Hitler) communist fanatics (like the former Soviet Union) extremist religions (such as Islamic states) and by madmen (like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe). Giving power to the "state" or to the "collective" gave our world present-day South Africa, a nation now ruled by the guiding force of a vengeful and incompetent "collective" of half-savage negroes, of whom the smaller minority of whites must now submit to.
As a result, Ayn Rand concluded that the only way for the individual to be protected from the arbitrary whim of such "states" and "collectives" was to put the interests of the individual above the communist fanatics and the Robert Mugabes of the world. She did not advocate anarchy, however, nor believe individuals would be free to run wild in a lawless society. She only advocated that every individual should be free to use the product of his own mind and his own labor to live a life free of societal dictates, such as Islamic religious dogma or the power lust of people like Saddam Hussein. The "state", according to Ayn Rand, should only exist as a means to protect the interests of free men, to intercede only when one individual committed a crime against another, such as theft, assault, murder, etc. What the "state" could not do, however, would be to force free individuals to hire negroes or gays if they did not want to, to participate in "preemptive wars", such as the recent one in Iraq, or to decide on their own that America needs to be "culturally enriched" by flooding the nation with millions of Mexicans and other non- whites.
Ayn Rand opposed all of the above and - in my view - for very sound reasons.
Walter Yannis said: [color=red]"The tribe, and not the individual, is the evolutionary unit of selection. David S. Wilson compares man to hydras - individuals whose group existence is so interwoven that they form a single organism, and the comparison strikes me as fitting. Thus, morality is the code governing individual behaviour that is deemed by reason and experience to be most conducive to the group's prosperity. It is the group, and not the individual, that is of paramount importance."[/color]
Robert Mugabe, Thabo Mbeki, and every potentate of the world's various Islamic states would certainly agree with this, as would Stalin and Pol Pot and every other "state" ruler who ever rammed his own idea of what he deemed was "good for the collective". So if the "group" happens to be the negroid majority of South Africa or Zimbabwe, then by this line of reasoning their interests - rather than the interests (and safety) of the white minority who live among them is to be considered of "paramount importance". Well, that's certainly something Robert Mugabe or Thabo Mbeki would agree with, and happily so as they turn a blind eye to the butchering of white farmers by the larger "collective" of their black constituents.
But in a society based on the moral code and societal rules that Ayn Rand advocated, a Robert Mugabe or a negroid nightmare like South Africa would never have come into existence, since the kind of "state" she envisioned would have stepped in immediately at the first sign of trouble to prevent such wanton oppression and butchery of whites. Now, whether such a society as Ayn Rand promulgated would ever succeed in coming into being is certainly open to debate, but misrepresenting what Rand advocated happens quite often, either by those who do not have a complete grasp of her beliefs and principles, or simply by those who oppose her simply because she was "a Jew". What such opponents seem to forget, however, is that much of what Rand advocated existed in the early years of our country, long before she was born. Rand, through her books and her philosophy, merely wanted to regain what we as free individuals had lost due to the burgeoning "welfare state" mentality of the US government and every liberal proponent who wanted to steal from the rich and give to the poor.
Walter Yannis said: [color=red]"The individual is free only insofar as the individual's freedom serves the collective..."[/color]
To put it bluntly, the above quote is one scary statement. If the individual is free only so far as he "serves the collective", that's just given every oppressive state (as well as our own government) the power to decide what is the "collective", and to what extent the individual must "serve" it.
Thanks Mr. Yannis - but no thanks.
Walter Yannis said: [color=red]"Now, that said, I think that reason and experience indicate that a broad measure of individual freedom is best conducive to group flourishing, but reasonable minds can clearly disagree on the exact boundaries between individual and collective interests."[/color]
Unfortunately, our government is not too often governed by "reasonable minds", but rather by a hodge-podge of liberals and conservatives, gay rights advocates, pro-abortion fanatics, anti- abortion fanatics, more non-white immigration advocates, less non-white immigration advocates, more taxes proponents, less taxes proponents, no taxes proponents, more porn promoters, less porn promoters, ad infinitum. So where in this maelstrom of opposing political and ideological views is there a common "collective"? Where are the "boundaries" of what is good for the "state" and what isn't? Who decides? Whites? Blacks? The poor, the middle class, the rich? Those in power, those who strive for power, or "just the people"? - whatever that might mean.
Walter Yannis said, in regard to the viewing of pornography: [color=red]"To repeat, the issue is not individual fulfillment, but the health of the collective..."[/color]
In my view, looking at pictures of naked women is indeed about "individual fulfillment", since the nebulous "collective" mentioned above certainly can't experience a collective hard-on while so doing. Now, one could outlaw pornography, but some of that nebulous "collective" wouldn't necessarily "benefit" from so doing. And once any government begins serving as the "collective moral guidance system" for the society at large then all manner of evil becomes possible, since the "collective" is usually not run by the actual "collective" itself, but by a small ruling elite. That said, perhaps a re-reading of Orwell's 1984 is in order here, since the society that Winston Smith lived in was certainly a "collective" - and one on steroids, I might add. Though a work of fiction, Orwell's opus clearly demonstrated the potential evil that the "collective" can impose on individual freedom. Again, an evil that Ayn Rand spent her life opposing.
Walter Yannis said: [color=red]"...as I've said, individual indulgence counts for nought...."[/color]
If that's the case, Mr. Yannis, remind me never to stop by your house for conversation and a drink of scotch, since both would constitute an "individual indulgence" - one that I freely admit doesn't benefit the "state" or the "collective" whatsoever and one that I flatly don't care if it does. To me, however, because I am a human being with my own life to live, it does indeed "count" - and the "collective" be damned if they don't like it.
In closing, let me say several last things: Ayn Rand and what she actually believed and advocated is misunderstood by a great many people, that is, those willing to examine her ideas rather than just writing her off "as a Jew". Many things destroying white America today Rand would have opposed, such as allowing Mexicans to cross over our borders illegally, affirmative action, forcing employers to hire gays, and so on. In fact, the very same things that many white nationalists oppose as well. One can indeed build an all-white society that gives maximum freedom to the individual while at the same time embedding a few necessary prerequisites: that the integrity of whites as a Race must be maintained at all cost, because from that fundamental genetic foundation all other things proceed.
After that, climb the bell tower and let freedom ring.
Tom
[img]http://www.beyondthishorizon.com/BeyondThisHorizonDigitalBannerPurpleText291x37.gif[/img]
2003-06-28 17:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 28 2003, 11:15 * ** Many things destroying white America today Rand would have opposed, such as allowing Mexicans to cross over our borders illegally, affirmative action, forcing employers to hire gays, and so on. In fact, the very things that many white nationalists oppose as well. One can indeed build an all-white society that gives maximum freedom to the individual while at the same time embedding a few necessary prerequisites: that the integrity of whites as a Race* must be maintained at all cost, because from that fundamental genetic foundation all other things proceed. **
Disagree. I saw an old Phil Donahue interview with Ayn in 1980 I believe - she totally supported "civil rights" and said racism is a terrible thing....something that humans with their glorious "rational minds" should never stoop so low to engage in.
She'd support the immigration, b/c it's all about free markets and freedom. So she thinks.
-Jay
2003-06-28 17:50 | User Profile
Ditto to what Walter Yannis and what Frederick William I had to say.
Although I obviously have no issues with moderate (tasteful) eroticism.
In some cultures, women are forced by financial crises into the distasteful profession of prostitution. And in others, prostitution is the culture. :thd:
[url=http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/893/context/archive]Hindu Mothers Prepare Their Eldest Daughters to Become Prostitutes[/url]
2003-06-28 17:55 | User Profile
The long-term (and inevitable) problem with porn is it makes whores of white women and ni**ers of white men.
Men and women have wanted sex from the time o' the tadpoles. And that urge cannot be blotted out or repressed. But societal proscriptions against rampant public promiscuity & smut sublimates those powerful urges, diverting them into other outlets.....thus civilizations are born, and flourish.
It's important to note that pornography...under the aegis of 'earthiness' and 'honesty'.....is one of the shinier apples profferred by Jews to 'repressed' gentile societies. When actually it is the hand of Jewry feeling for the soft part of the cultural underbelly, seeking an entry point. But when you gut an animal for for the sustenance of its meat and the warmth of its fur, what is happening to the animal in the meantime?
2003-06-28 18:02 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Alka@Jun 28 2003, 12:50 * ** [.......]
In some cultures, women are forced by financial crises into the distasteful profession of prostitution. And in others, prostitution is the culture. :thd:
[url=http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/893/context/archive]Hindu Mothers Prepare Their Eldest Daughters to Become Prostitutes[/url] **
Obvious nonwhite mud culture. :thd:
2003-06-28 18:03 | User Profile
Mr. Jay said: [color=red]"Disagree. I saw an old Phil Donahue interview with Ayn in 1980 I believe - she totally supported "civil rights" and said racism is a terrible thing..."[/color]
Mr. Jay, if you were more familiar with Ayn Rand's actual thoughts on "civil rights" you would understand that she opposed such things as "affirmative action", illegal Third World immigration, and other racially-influenced issues of our day.
Here's where you're confused: Ayn Rand was indeed for "civil rights", but ONLY in the context of the government not imposing "separate" and inferior schools upon minorities, based on the reasoning that such minorities were entitled to equal treatment under the law when it came to the distribution and use of taxpayer funds - taxpayer funds which working blacks had paid into.
She did NOT, however, advocate that a racist white should be compelled by law to serve blacks in his cafe or diner if he did not wish to - something that "civil rights" activists believed otherwise. In fact, she supported the idea that a white employer had every moral right to refuse to hire negroes for any reason whatsoever, including race hatred. She supported, even, the right of such a white employer to post a highly visible sign on the front door of his business stating: WE DO NOT HIRE NIGGERS!!!
Now, does that sound to you like Ayn Rand was "totally for civil rights"?
As for her opposition to "racism" you are correct - Rand staunchly opposed it. But here is where you're confused about her beliefs, as most people are. Though Rand believed racism was wrong - she did NOT believe the "state" or the "collective" had either a legal or moral right to FORCE anyone to hire blacks, gays, or, for that matter, people with warts on their chins - if they simply did not want to.
Or look at it this way: one can believe that drinking beer or smoking cigarettes is not a good thing to do, while at the same time not believing such indulgences should be made illegal. In regard to Rand and racism, that is how she felt: She personally thought it was wrong not to hire a high IQ, talented black simply because he was black. She thought that was stupid, and that was her right to believe so. And THAT is as far as she supported the concept of "civil rights" and "racial equality" - that blacks should not be prevented (as in the past they were) from having free access to all state-funded facilities, schools, parks, etc - based on the reasoning that they contributed to the tax base as well.
Finally, you're wrong about her views on immigration as well. Ayn Rand did not support illegal immigration, as she was a staunch advocate of the law - and such immigration is in violation of the law. On the other hand, yes, she was an advocate of freedom and free markets, that an employer had a moral right to be able to hire whomever he pleased, and for whatever reason. That, however, does not equate to her believing that America should be flooded with immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Keep in mind that in Ayn Rand's view of society and goverment, NO welfare would exist - which, right there, would have stopped COLD millions of Mexicans from crossing our borders, if they had known ahead of time that no free hand-outs would have been available to them.
I suggest you research Ayn Rand's philosophy a bit more than you obviously have, Mr. Jay, for she is none of the things you suggested.
Tom
[img]http://www.beyondthishorizon.com/BeyondThisHorizonDigitalBannerPurpleText291x37.gif[/img]
2003-06-28 18:46 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 28 2003, 15:42 * ** I don't see how you can dispute the close ties between sexual permissiveness and such low-investment parenting related behaviors such as illegitimacy, divorce, and parental indifference. They are part and parcel of the mentality of radical individualism reflected in the lower classes. **
As always, and excellent post.
I don't mean to dispute the nexus between these phenomena, and indeed as I state it seems obviously to be the case that the connection exists.
I merely state that the burden of proof doesn't lie with pornography's opponents to prove why it's bad and why society and the state should have the right to regulate it, for the reasons set forth above. I think that our beloved Birdman has it backwards: pornography is presumptively bad, and any proponent of pornography carries a heavy burden to prove that it is good. A burden so weighty that it could not possibly be carried in practice.
On a related note, I read recently (in Catholic World Report, I think) an interview with (IP) Judith Reisman, who is leading the neocon countermarch on sexual morality, especially the treatablility of homosexuality. She is a clinical psychologist, and she had a homosexual patient who said that he never recalled being sexually abused as a child (which she thinks is almost always the cause of adult homosexuality). During one session he related how when he was 12 years old or so his older brother was reading Playboy and got very aroused, and turned to his little brother for release, and realized that this was the abuse event that caused his homosexuality.
I of course don't vouch for the truth of the facts or the good motives of Dr. Reisman, but the story seems plausible. Assuming that its true, here we have a case where pornography did terrible damage to society; it created a homosexual of a boy who could have become a husband and father. On average he'd be prone to repeating the abuse himself.
What does Birdman offer to outweigh that damage? Individual indulgence isn't a value, I repeat, since the interests of the group, and not the individual, are morally operative.
Walter
2003-06-28 18:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 28 2003, 17:55 * ** The long-term (and inevitable) problem with porn is it makes whores of white women and ni*ers of white men.
Men and women have wanted sex from the time o' the tadpoles. And that urge cannot be blotted out or repressed. But societal proscriptions against rampant public promiscuity & smut sublimates those powerful urges, diverting them into other outlets.....thus civilizations are born, and flourish.
It's important to note that pornography...under the aegis of 'earthiness' and 'honesty'.....is one of the shinier apples profferred by Jews to 'repressed' gentile societies. When actually it is the hand of Jewry feeling for the soft part of the cultural underbelly, seeking an entry point. But when you gut an animal for for the sustenance of its meat and the warmth of its fur, what is happening to the animal in the meantime? **
Very well put, Il Ragno.
The ethnicity of our great pornographers - Sumner Redstone leaps to mind - should be a good tip-off as to the real agenda.
Walter
2003-06-28 18:55 | User Profile
I have also follwed Reisman's work with some interest. Here's an article on a related subject (requires Adobe Acrobat): [url=http://www.drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf]Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth - by Dr. Judith A. Reisman[/url]
2003-06-28 19:17 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 28 2003, 17:15 * ** In closing, let me say several last things: Ayn Rand and what she actually believed and advocated is misunderstood by a great many people, that is, those willing to examine her ideas rather than just writing her off "as a Jew". Many things destroying white America today Rand would have opposed, such as allowing Mexicans to cross over our borders illegally, affirmative action, forcing employers to hire gays, and so on. In fact, the very same things that many white nationalists oppose as well. One can indeed build an all-white society that gives maximum freedom to the individual while at the same time embedding a few necessary prerequisites: that the integrity of whites as a Race must be maintained at all cost, because from that fundamental genetic foundation all other things proceed. **
Thank you for your very thoughtful response.
The snippet above I think reveals the inconsistency in your thinking. On one hand, you say that "the integrity of whites as a Race must be maintained at all cost, because from that fundamental genetic foundation all other things proceed" while on the other hand insisting on the moral primacy of the individual.
Do you see? You're trying to have it both ways.
If "genetic integrity" is the "foundation" for "all other things", then I respectfully submit that the individual is a function of that foundation, and not vice versa. The moral implication is obvious: the [genetic] collective enjoys moral primacy over the individual.
I repeat that this does not imply, as you appear to assume, that the individual is therefore of no value and that the collective may dispose of its individuals without regard to their dignity, precisely because reason and experience indicate that broad guarantees of individual rights and immunities in relation to society and the state are most conducive to collective prosperity. This is a somewhat couterintuitive result, I think analogously to Adam Smith's discovery about the multiplier effects of free trade, as stated above. But it is just as much a moral fact inferred reasonably from the observed facts as is the evolutionary primacy of the tribe over the individual.
I also respectfully invit you to read this article from [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/04/rauch.htm]The Atlantic Monthly[/url] about the science of modeling computer societies. The conclusion is this:
**There is no such thing as society," Margaret Thatcher famously said in 1987. "There are individual men and women, and there are families." If all she meant was that in a liberal democracy the individual is sovereign, then she was right. But if she also meant that, as some conservatives believe, the notion of a capital-S Society is a collectivist fiction or a sneaky euphemism for the nanny state, then it appears that she was demonstrably wrong; and the artificial societies I have shown you are the demonstrations. **
Alisa Rosenberg's Roark was wrong; there really is a collective brain. It is the tribe, united by the mystic chords of blood, cult and art.
Regards,
Walter
2003-06-28 19:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 28 2003, 18:03 * ** Mr. Jay said:* [color=red]"Disagree. I saw an old Phil Donahue interview with Ayn in 1980 I believe - she totally supported "civil rights" and said racism is a terrible thing..."[/color]
Mr. Jay, if you were more familiar with Ayn Rand's actual thoughts on "civil rights" you would understand that she opposed such things as "affirmative action", illegal Third World immigration, and other racially-influenced issues of our day. **
Tom, on a related topic, have you read Kevin MacDonald's books, especially "Culture of Critique."
If you have not may I again very respectfully suggest that you take a look at it.
I've come to believe that Objectivism fits very well the profile Prof. MacDonald outlines for offensive Jewish intellectual movements, to wit: it was founded and advanced by a charismatic rabbinical type figure, it demanded loyalty from its followers, it surrounded itself with sycophantic gentiles, it couched itself in high-sounding universalisms, it was concerned with plausible arguments and apologetics rather than with empirical science, and the list goes on. Like Boasian Sociology, Marxism, Fruedianism, Frankfurt School (PeeCee) Sociology, and the like, Objectivism fits the profile too neatly to be an accident.
MacDonald points out that all of these "isms" were in one way or another aimed at nullifying gentile social cohesion, and Objectivism's promotion of extreme individualism is just one form of this attack.
Walter
2003-06-28 19:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jun 28 2003, 18:50 -->
QUOTE (Walter Yannis @ Jun 28 2003, 18:50 ) <!--QuoteBegin-il ragno@Jun 28 2003, 17:55 * *....It's important to note that pornography...under the aegis of 'earthiness' and 'honesty'.....is one of the shinier apples profferred by Jews to 'repressed' gentile societies. When actually it is the hand of Jewry feeling for the soft part of the cultural underbelly, seeking an entry point. But when you gut an animal for for the sustenance of its meat and the warmth of its fur, what is happening to the animal in the meantime? ** Very well put, Il Ragno.
The ethnicity of our great pornographers - Sumner Redstone leaps to mind - should be a good tip-off as to the real agenda.
Walter**
Its interesting that this whole issue comes up in an article from Culture Wars about the "Vagina Monologues", which discussed in an OD thread
**Whoever determines sexual mores rules the state.
In order to answer that question we have to describe the sides in the Kulturkampf which raged throughout the German-speaking world in the period between the two world wars. Reich was a communist and a Freudian and as such his main opponent in Vienna was the Catholic Church. After years of trying in vain to debate the existence of God and getting nowhere in persuading people to become atheistic communists, Reich noticed a simple fact. If you changed the sexual behavior of idealistic young Catholics in the direction of sexual liberation, which included masturbation, then the idea of God simply evaporated from their minds and they defected from the Catholic Church, and the way to successful revolution was clear. The key to bringing about revolution was changing sexual behavior, something he noticed in a communist girl whose behavior he discusses in The Mass Psychology of Fascism. The girl was in the habit of masturbating, when a woman brought up the idea of divine punishment she stopped masturbating.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=5738&hl=vagina]V-Day at St. Maryââ¬â¢s College - Sexual Liberation, as a Political Tool[/url]**
Tom Rennick
2003-06-28 20:46 | User Profile
Mr. Yannis said:
[color=red]"The snippet above I think reveals the inconsistency in your thinking. On one hand, you say that "the integrity of whites as a Race must be maintained at all cost, because from that fundamental genetic foundation all other things proceed" while on the other hand insisting on the moral primacy of the individual."[/color]
Mr. Yannis: There is no "inconsistency" whatsoever in my statement. I never said I accept all of Ayn Rand's views, and certainly not those in regard to race. She and I agree only on one thing: that white property and business owners have every moral right to deny service to anyone they please, and that such a moral right should not be negated by law.
Where I differ from her is that I believe whites need to establish a fundamental "law" within our Constitution that places the integrity of the white Race as inviolable, thus elimating any risk from either new laws, by any form of temporary or transient public policy, or by any other means to usurp it. That is what I meant by "at all cost" - that white racial preservation is sacrosanct, to be defended and protected by permanent governmental edict, that it cannot be tampered with or changed.
Once that is established, once white racial preservation is accepted as non-negotiable in any future USA, then one can permit a wide range of individual freedoms, provided they do not violate that one tenet. As for "moral primacy" of the individual, you seems to imply by that statement that I'm advocating a society in which the individual can "do as he pleases" - which is not at all what Rand or I am advocating.
Mr. Yannis said: [color=red]"Alisa Rosenberg's Roark was wrong; there really is a collective brain. It is the tribe, united by the mystic chords of blood, cult and art."[/color]
I don't believe in any "collective brain" or "mystic chords", Mr. Yannis. My motive for working towards the preservation of the white race are purely based on one thing: who best runs this world we live in. That, and that alone, is what drives me.
Tom
triskelion
2003-06-28 20:54 | User Profile
What's wrong with the libertine mind set that thinks porn and every variety of sexual deviancy such as pedophia which the Birdman supports can be answered by what the acceptance of such values means to society. In large measure, the basis of a healthy society is the nuclear family because the family is responsible for passing along a sense of identity and values across generations providing society providing cohesion and an understanding of obligations the individual has beyond himself. Traditional Occidental morals also provide an environment in which the perpetuation of our sub-species is encouraged by producing descendants within an environment in which they have the best chance of receiving the material and emotional support children need to become functioning members of a society and the understanding that something greater then the immediate demands of gut and groin should dominate their attentions. Without a firm, stable nuclear family a stable productive society simply can't exist.
Sexual deviancy places simple carnal desire above one's responsibility to that primal building block of society known as the family in a subservient position lust. Rather then strengthening societal cohesion the libertine mind set views individuals simply in terms of vessels of gratification for the transitory lusts of others. The acceptance of such an outlook has as an inevitable consequence the de-emphasis of common purpose and obligation which naturally allows for cohesive alien populations a chance to impose themselves upon a random collection of disassociated individuals which I think explains in large measure why libertine behavior is actively promoted by jews.
Naturally, sexual deviancy promotes the spread of disease and illegitimate birth which further help undermine the preservation of our nations. One clearly sees the opposite of Occidental Traditionalism in such matters with the famous Hugh Heffner quote "women are like Kleenex I use them throw them away." Or the rallying call of the depraved "If it feels good do it" or it's more modern version "If it feels good do it, if feels painful do it more". Naturally, no one save libertarian dogmatics and others totally alienated from the concept of social responsibility think that porn is anything but a socio-pathology as one can find numerous porno industry figures come right out and admit that what they do is promote a vile sickness for love of money, sadism and self hatreds. At one time I had plenty of quotes from porno heavy weights to that effect but it will take a while to dig it up. Of course, doing so is not necessary given that plenty of porno is marketed as being sick and dehumanizing. In the end, sex can become an agent of societal disintegration when people are reduced to mere commodities for momentary entertainment rather then as a reward for fidelity and sacrifice for something greater then one's self which is the essence of family life.
In a larger sense, the problem with sex goes back to the problem of the social nillism that is libertarianism. Nearly all Libertarians, are fully in support of erasing national boarders and has nothing but contempt for any form of racialism including the neutered quasi racialism pushed by AmRen. They do so because they view humans as strictly economic actors and deem history, culture and race as irrational and meaningless. Of course much the libertarian establishment in the states is very pro-Zionism, ex. Reason Magazine, the Cato Foundations, FEE and CLS, which demonstrates that internal constancy is simply lacking from the bulk of the libertarian movement.
As I have made my rejection of the mystical psychobabble presented as irrefutable natural law known as" free market economics" clear often in the past I will deal with the matter only in passing now so as to save time. Libertarianism has not been compatible with Eurocentrism within living memory nor can it be in a multi-generational sense ever since the advent of industrialization. This should come as no surprise as libertarianism holds humans as mere "rational maximizers of utility" and as such it is fully logical that such an outlook objects to nation, race and tradition as irrational and contrary to a Rational Objectionist notion of liberty and morality.
In part this is because the unrestrained flow of capital and labor has globalism as a natural consequence which is in turn is fully incompatible with the small town nostalgia and sense of community so dear to racialists and paleo-cons. Another consequence of transnational capitalism is the domination of multi-national enterprises over alien cultures and states which destroy the true racial diversity dear to genuine racialists while encouraging imperialist wars of aggression which in turn force Occidental states to become larger, more repressive and globalist in outlook.
Long before so called "negative externalities" of capitalism brought about the current levels of globalism the libertarian impulse was wreaking havoc upon Occidental traditionalism. The ascendancy of capital over traditional societal arrangements helped to foster class conflict and the gradual destruction of a sense of national identity allowing the rise of racial aliens and class warfare in our nations. Without this societal chaos the "long march through the institutions" which produced cultural bolshevism could never have happened. As the forces of capital became consolidated within an ever shrinking collection of oligopolies the motive force of culture went from primarily an organic basis to mere fadism/universalism manufactured by often alien plutocrats which in turn provided a means for those that control transnational capital to determine the perceptions of the electorate. Thereby allowing the absolute dominance of anti Occidental forces over our societies. In short, a philosophy which is centered upon atomistic individualism and crass materialism is one that is wholly at odds with racial solidarity and identification once Occidental man's natural capacity for invention makes long distance travel and communication widely available.
Walter Yannis
2003-06-28 21:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 28 2003, 20:46 * ** Mr. Yannis said:*
[color=red]"The snippet above I think reveals the inconsistency in your thinking. On one hand, you say that "the integrity of whites as a Race must be maintained at all cost, because from that fundamental genetic foundation all other things proceed" while on the other hand insisting on the moral primacy of the individual."[/color]
Mr. Yannis: There is no "inconsistency" whatsoever in my statement. I never said I accept all of Ayn Rand's views, and certainly not those in regard to race. She and I agree only on one thing: that white property and business owners have every moral right to deny service to anyone they please, and that such a moral right should not be negated by law.
Where I differ from her is that I believe whites need to establish a fundamental "law" within our Constitution that places the integrity of the white Race as inviolable, thus elimating any risk from either new laws, by any form of temporary or transient public policy, or by any other means to usurp it. That is what I meant by "at all cost" - that white racial preservation is sacrosanct, to be defended and protected by permanent governmental edict, that it cannot be tampered with or changed.
Once that is established, once white racial preservation is accepted as non-negotiable in any future USA, then one can permit a wide range of individual freedoms, provided they do not violate that one tenet. As for "moral primacy" of the individual, you seems to imply by that statement that I'm advocating a society in which the individual can "do as he pleases" - which is not at all what Rand or I am advocating.
Mr. Yannis said: [color=red]"Alisa Rosenberg's Roark was wrong; there really is a collective brain. It is the tribe, united by the mystic chords of blood, cult and art."[/color]
I don't believe in any "collective brain" or "mystic chords", Mr. Yannis. My motive for working towards the preservation of the white race are purely based on one thing: who best runs this world we live in. That, and that alone, is what drives me.
Tom **
Mr. Yannis: There is no "inconsistency" whatsoever in my statement. I never said I accept all of Ayn Rand's views, and certainly not those in regard to race. She and I agree only on one thing: that white property and business owners have every moral right to deny service to anyone they please, and that such a moral right should not be negated by law.
Well, I agree with that, but I wouldn't exactly call it the essence of Ayn Rand's (Alisa Rosenberg's) thought. The central tenet of her ideology is this notion of "no collective brain" - the denial of the existence of the collective. It's a fundamental error, and much of the generally prevalant positions among libertarians flow from it, IMO.
**Where I differ from her is that I believe whites need to establish a fundamental "law" within our Constitution that places the integrity of the white Race as inviolable, thus elimating any risk from either new laws, by any form of temporary or transient public policy, or by any other means to usurp it. That is what I meant by "at all cost" - that white racial preservation is sacrosanct, to be defended and protected by permanent governmental edict, that it cannot be tampered with or changed.ÃÂ Once that is established, once white racial preservation is accepted as non-negotiable in any future USA, then one can permit a wide range of individual freedoms, provided they do not violate that one tenet. **
I agree with that as far as it goes, although I would point out that Constitutional protections haven't proven themselves to be exactly "sacrosanct." Our Constitutional rights are routinely defined out of existence by a SCOTUS that holds my people's traditions in contempt. As my right honorable friend Neo likes to point out, the real question is whether it's "your" government.
As for "moral primacy" of the individual, you seems to imply by that statement that I'm advocating a society in which the individual can "do as he pleases" - which is not at all what Rand or I am advocating.
Okay, fair enough. But libertarians in general take their cues from Objectivism and from my experience generally are against the sodomy laws, for example. That's because they don't recongnize the objective existence of the corporate nature of man (Rand's "collective brain"), and they therefore can't recognize any but the most immediate groups needs, such as preventing random violence. Thus, most libertarians would see the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law as good thing, since they see no reason to deny the individual's right to "do whatever they please with their body." Some of them might object to the judicial activism required to reach the ruling, but no libertarian I know would dispute the Court's ultimate conclusion that the state has no legitimate warrant in the bedrooms of consenting adults.
Actually, now that I think about it, the whole line of cases that gave rise to this latest judicial atrocity is based on precisely this flawed notion of "privacy." There was a case called Griswald back in the late 1960's that established the "right to privacy" in the birth control context. This "right to privacy" is, of course, nowhere to be found in the Constitution and is a purely judicial construct. From that case flowed all the abortion cases including Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and of course more recently Casey, as well as the whole line of 4th Amendment cases that eroded so terribly our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The question in those fourth amendment cases always became whether the criminal defendant had a "privacy interest" in the search, and as the drug war wore on the sphere of this judicially fabricated "privacy" began to contract. From trunks of cars to pocket searches, the cops were allowed ever greater rights to lay hands on citizens in search of little packets of drugs.
It's interesting that it started with a birth control case. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is the root of our current troubles as Pope Paul VI prophesied, but I digress.
I don't believe in any "collective brain" or "mystic chords", Mr. Yannis. My motive for working towards the preservation of the white race are purely based on one thing: who best runs this world we live in. That, and that alone, is what drives me.
I hope that you will find time to read the Atlantic Monthly article - it proves the existence of a collective brain to my satisfaction, and I believe you will find it at least interesting enough to warrant your attention.
Regards,
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-06-28 21:57 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 28 2003, 20:54 * ** In a larger sense, the problem with sex goes back to the problem of the social nillism that is libertarianism. Nearly all Libertarians, are fully in support of erasing national boarders and has nothing but contempt for any form of racialism including the neutered quasi racialism pushed by AmRen. **
I agree with you generally.
The snippet above makes our own Tom Rennick an unusual case - a "racialist libertarian?"
Would that be a fair description, Tom?
Walter
Avalanche
2003-06-29 01:19 | User Profile
** Tom: Ayn Rand did not support illegal immigration, as she was a staunch advocate of the law - and such immigration is in violation of the law. On the other hand, yes, she was an advocate of freedom and free markets, that an employer had a moral right to be able to hire whomever he pleased, and for whatever reason. That, however, does not equate to her believing that America should be flooded with immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Keep in mind that in Ayn Rand's view of society and goverment, NO welfare would exist - which, right there, would have stopped COLD millions of Mexicans from crossing our borders, if they had known ahead of time that no free hand-outs would have been available to them.**
This is a conflict in logic. If you stop the handouts, hordes of mexicans will STILL come because ââ¬Åan employer had a moral right to be able to hire whomever he pleasedââ¬Â and so the American employers WOULD do as they DO do ââ¬â and hire Mexies at half or less than Americans would be paid. Itââ¬â¢s idiotic to say ââ¬ËI believe in free markets, and because weââ¬â¢ll stop giving away FREE money, people will stop coming here and destroying the country!ââ¬Â
Even with NO welfare, America is a HUGELY better than Mexico (or wherever) -- we have laws, and generally uncorrupt police and safe hospitals and so on ââ¬â so itââ¬â¢s ALWAYS to the benefit of ANY immigrant to get here however he can, because it will ALWAYS be better than wherever he came from. And so Rand was living in cloud-cuckoo land on immigration.
** Tom later: white property and business owners have every moral right to deny service to anyone they please, and that such a moral right should not be negated by law.** Fer shure agree here. But how do you balance the protection of the individual and the protection of the individual? Which individual has primacy? If the grocers all refuse to sell to blacks, how do the blacks eat?
M1488D
2003-06-29 02:25 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 28 2003, 12:03 * ** Here's where you're confused: Ayn Rand was indeed for "civil rights", but ONLY in the context of the government not imposing "separate" and inferior schools upon minorities, based on the reasoning that such minorities were entitled to equal treatment under the law when it came to the distribution and use of taxpayer funds - taxpayer funds which working blacks had paid into.
She did NOT, however, advocate that a racist white should be compelled by law to serve blacks in his cafe or diner if he did not wish to - something that "civil rights" activists believed otherwise. In fact, she supported the idea that a white employer had every moral right to refuse to hire negroes for any reason whatsoever, including race hatred. She supported, even, the right of such a white employer to post a highly visible sign on the front door of his business stating: WE DO NOT HIRE NIGGERS!!!
Now, does that sound to you like Ayn Rand was "totally for civil rights"?
**
Who cares what the F'n JEWESS thinks? I, for one, am [u]NOT[/u] listening anymore.
Phillip Augustus
2003-06-29 03:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jun 28 2003, 15:57 -->
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jun 28 2003, 15:57 ) <!--QuoteBegin-triskelion@Jun 28 2003, 20:54 * ** In a larger sense, the problem with sex goes back to the problem of the social nillism that is libertarianism. Nearly all Libertarians, are fully in support of erasing national boarders and has nothing but contempt for any form of racialism including the neutered quasi racialism pushed by AmRen. ** I agree with you generally.
The snippet above makes our own Tom Rennick an unusual case - a "racialist libertarian?"
Would that be a fair description, Tom?
Walter **
Not as unusual as you might think, Walter. A racialist libertarian is not a far stretch from a paleolibertarian, and there are plenty of those around. (see, www.lewrockwell.com).
Walter Yannis
2003-06-29 06:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Phillip Augustus+Jun 29 2003, 03:09 -->
QUOTE (Phillip Augustus @ Jun 29 2003, 03:09 )
QUOTE* (Walter Yannis @ Jun 28 2003, 15:57 ) <!--QuoteBegin-triskelion@Jun 28 2003, 20:54 * ** In a larger sense, the problem with sex goes back to the problem of the social nillism that is libertarianism. Nearly all Libertarians, are fully in support of erasing national boarders and has nothing but contempt for any form of racialism including the neutered quasi racialism pushed by AmRen. ** I agree with you generally.
The snippet above makes our own Tom Rennick an unusual case - a "racialist libertarian?"
Would that be a fair description, Tom?
Walter **
Not as unusual as you might think, Walter. A racialist libertarian is not a far stretch from a paleolibertarian, and there are plenty of those around. (see, www.lewrockwell.com). **
Well, you have a point.
Certainly Birdman Bryant is another case of a libertarian sporting racialist views.
I'm not seeing how they reconcile the concepts of "race as the basis of everything human" and "the individual is the only moral subject."
At least appears to be their position.
Walter
Texas Dissident
2003-06-29 07:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 28 2003, 15:54 * *What's wrong with the libertine mind set that thinks porn and every variety of sexual deviancy such as pedophia which the Birdman supports can be answered by what the acceptance of such values means to society. In large measure, the basis of a healthy society is the nuclear family because the family is responsible for passing along a sense of identity and values across generations providing society providing cohesion and an understanding of obligations the individual has beyond himself. **
Three cheers and then some, triskelion! :th:
Excellent comments, my friend. You sound here very much like a trad. Catholic. :)
Walter Yannis
2003-06-30 09:38 | User Profile
*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 30 2003, 03:42 * ** While I don't "approve" of prostitution personally, I have to say that I can't see any logic to making it illegal.
Consider this: today's "liberated" women see sexual promiscuity as a badge of honor, as proof positive of their "liberation." Consequently, a woman can hang around a bar and go home with a different stranger every night, and do so not only legally but with society's full sanction. Yet if another woman were to do the same not as proof of her "liberated" status but for money, she is engaging in an illegal activity. Where is the consistency?
For that matter, I should also add that well before women's lib raised its ugly head, female gold-diggers sought out wealthy (and often aging) husbands. That was also a socially sanctioned behavior, yet for all intents and purposes it was also prostitution.
Are prostitutes and prostitution any more contemptible than today's Sex and the City-watching "liberated" hussies or yesterday's gold diggers? Until this double standard is resolved I can see no reason to justify making prostitution illegal. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the promiscuous "liberated" woman is a greater social problem than the prostitute. **
That's an interesting perspective, but I think it loses sight of the basic factors of the analysis.
It's not about morality so much as it's about whether criminalizing prostitution and pornography are worth the social costs incurred thereby. People, after all, will always do immoral stuff, but the state can't effectively police every act or thought that people might do or think.
The question really is "is it worth it?" and I think that the answer is that full criminalization is not worth it. Same with the "War on Drugs" and the failed experiment of Prohibition. Getting drunk is immoral and alcoholism imposes horrific costs on society in terms of damaged families, car and industrial accidents, child neglect and abuse, health problems, and so forth. But Prohibition was a cure worse than the disease - it created the Irish and then the Sicilian mafias, it corrupted our police forces and political machinery, and so forth. And for all this it washn't terribly effective in keeping Americans on the wagon. Actually, funny thing but the founders of the only effective alcohol treatment program "Alcoholics Anonymous" I'm told all did their best drinking during Prohibition. Prohibition didn't even slow those guys down.
Same analysis for The War on Drugs. Drug abuse a bad, bad thing, no doubt about that, but making it illegal is even worse. We created a monster narco mafia that corrupts our system and subverts and destabilizers our neighbors like Columbia, it erodes our Constitutional protections against police actions (most of the really bad 4th Amendment cases that have reduced our "no searches or seizures without a warrant" come from drug cases), it's lead to property seizure laws without due process of law, it's ruined many young lives as people do time for mere possession, it's crowded our prison system, etc. and so forth. And for all the effort, drug abuse continues at high levels.
Ditto prostitution and pornography. Make it illegal, and the Jewish mafia will have an even bigger field day than they are now. It will corrupt our politics just like the War on Drugs. And for all the time and trouble and lost freedom it won't even slow down the either porno or prostitution.
So I say control these things strictly in time, place and manner. Nobody should have to put up with somebody shooting up drugs or pimping girls on their street corner. We can spend our time and effort moving those things out of residential areas, and put them in nice redlight districts where they belong. We can spend money on advertising against these things, and impose rules on the media that they can't glorify these things in films and popular songs that are broadcast to the public (not that I'd ban their production and sale completely for the same cost-benefit reasons - if they want to do it they can publish it on the internet but the airwaves and cable systems belong to families).
In short, these are social problems that must be dealt with primarily by means of social opinion and other non-state measures. The state has a legitimate (although very limited) role in helping to form public opinion. But the state only makes matters worse when it tries to assume the role of enforcing standards that only families and communities can effectively discharge.
I disagree respectfully that a young woman looking to form a long term relationship with an older man is engaging in anything immoral. Hey, were arranged marriages immoral? Was it immoral for Count Rostov in "War and Peace" to want to marry his daughter Natasha (aged 16) off to Pierre Bezukhov (aged 34) because Pierre had a nice estate and good job and could care properly for his beloved daughter with a measure of comfort? No way! That's just the way it works. It stems from the simple fact of nature that women have the babies, and they have to make some hard headed decisions about the ability of the perspective fathers of their children to care for them when they're at their most vulnerable. Women thus developed instincts to seek out mates who can take care of them and their children, and that's all normal.
Golddiggers are just doing what comes naturally, AntiYuppie. So long as they respect the marriage bond for themselves and their chosen prey, I say "good hunting, girls!" I have daughters myself, and I've often told them to make sure they marry a good white Christian man with a good career, and maybe even a bit of real estate, stocks and bonds, and a nice collection of Kruger Rands! He'll be easier to love!!!!
The "Sex in the City" phenomenon is completely different. Those women aren't respecting their evolved natures at all to mate for the long term and raise offspring, and are in fact engaging in behaviour that is terribly destructive to them personally and to society as a whole (no babies!) Their behaviour truly is immoral for exactly those reasons.
Best regards,
Walter
Lady_America
2003-07-01 04:49 | User Profile
xxxxx
madrussian
2003-07-01 05:12 | User Profile
Good catch, and he/she mentioned that hag Alyssa Rosenbaum too :lol:
Tex, double-check the ip address, maybe renny is smart enough to use a different ip, or maybe not
I wonder if renny also poses as some Hollywood nazi character
Kurt
2003-07-01 05:21 | User Profile
Yes, good work, Octo.
[SIZE=2]It's funny; I had a feeling "Lady_America" was Rennick too, based on this other [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8892&st=0]post[/url] "she" made. I was even going to accuse "her" of such, but didn't have any hard evidence (except that "she" was just as obnoxious as him).[/SIZE]
madrussian
2003-07-01 05:27 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Kurt@Jun 30 2003, 22:21 * ** Yes, good work, Octo.
[SIZE=2]It's funny; I had a feeling "Lady_America" was Rennick too, based on this other [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8892&st=0]post[/url] "she" made. I was even going to accuse "her" of such, but didn't have any hard evidence (except that "she" was just as obnoxious as him).[/SIZE] **
I just re-read the post your linked and the first few paragraphs did resemble a typical renny rant very much. I repeat, is there any difference between an obnoxious philosemitic Rand-worshipping "Rennick" and a Jew?
Lady_America
2003-07-01 05:45 | User Profile
Hello People!!! I'm the real Lady America. I happen to live in the same house and using the same ISP address as Rennick. Our computers are connected to the same DSL line. Rennick introduced me to the Original Dissent, as I had at one time use to post at TownHall several years back, and found OD to be a credible and intelligent forum much like Town Hall. However, it has been a long time since then and I've been wanting to get back into the practice of discussing major issues that face the country today, thus I joined several days ago.
As far as Mr. Rennick goes, I do not hold all his viewpoints as mine. There are some that I agree on, but they are few and far in between.
So, my Dear Kurt, no matter how many insults you throw my way in thinking that I am him as I continue to post at OD, you are sorely mistaken. But, it will be fun to see you, if you should, continue to insist I am him.
Finally, I was angry when Rennick posted his post under my name. He had aided me in inserting my avatar from his computer, thus was logged under my name.
The matter is done in my opinion.
Lady_America
2003-07-01 05:49 | User Profile
I just re-read the post your linked and the first few paragraphs did resemble a typical renny rant very much.
I only hope not. But, some people do sound a lot a like in this forum as well.
**It's funny; I had a feeling "Lady_America" was Rennick too, based on this other post "she" made. I was even going to accuse "her" of such, but didn't have any hard evidence (except that "she" was just as obnoxious as him). **
Interesting, Mad. I had no idea I was so obnoxious. I'll have to go back and reread my own post as I tried to be as democratic as possible. However, writing is an art that is learned and I am still a student. I'll have to reread more of Mad & Tex because they seem to be two of the best writers in the forum.
Regards,
Lady America
Lady_America
2003-07-01 05:59 | User Profile
I have a problem regarding prostitution in that I equate it with the pornography that is there on the web in full force. There seems to be endless streams of smut spam hitting my emails constantly and without end, as women are 'prostituting' themselves for the pleasure of getting the 'gents' a hard on in order to sell their sites and products.
Realizing after reading many of these posts, that there are a few here that obviously do not have a problem with it. So, I ask this. For those of the 'collective' that do not wish to be innudated with it, what is our rights in keeping it from our 'collective' inboxes and popups? In addition, I don't even want any of the advertisements regarding "enlargements and enhancements". Call me a prude like Jay, but if the 'collective' does not want it, but certain individuals want it, how does one accomodate both? Can both be accomodating? Afterall, isn't the current situation with homosexuality getting to the point where the homos are only accomodating themselves and forgetting about the 'collective'?
Walter Yannis
2003-07-01 11:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 1 2003, 00:35 * ** And regardless of what is morally equivalent to what, my point was simply that if our society is willing to tolerate (and for that matter, celebrate) sexual promiscuity, there is no good reason to outlaw prostitution. The social cost of adultery and fornication (not for hire, that is) are probably as high if not higher than the cost of prostitution, yet nobody is seriously considering outlawing either.
**
I agree with that.
It's a cost-benefit analysis - the question is not whether a given act is moral or not.
I see now that this is what you had in mind in the first place.
Have you ever read "The Morality of the Law" by Lon Fuller.
It's required reading, in my opinion. It really addressed this terribly corrosive thread of judicial nihilism bequethed us by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Fuller offers a framework for looking at legal issues that IMHO goes a long way toward eliminating the confusion so often arising in these discussions.
Walter
Kurt
2003-07-01 14:51 | User Profile
Hello People!!! I'm the real Lady America. I happen to live in the same house and using the same ISP address as Rennick. Our computers are connected to the same DSL line. Rennick introduced me to the Original Dissent, as I had at one time use to post at TownHall several years back, and found OD to be a credible and intelligent forum much like Town Hall. However, it has been a long time since then and I've been wanting to get back into the practice of discussing major issues that face the country today, thus I joined several days ago.
Not the ol' "We're sharing a computer/isp" gag. :lol: I don't know how many times I've heard that one on other forums and chatrooms.
(You'd think Abe F. could afford to get you your own, separate accounts. ;) )
**As far as Mr. Rennick goes, I do not hold all his viewpoints as mine. There are some that I agree on, but they are few and far in between.
So, my Dear Kurt, no matter how many insults you throw my way in thinking that I am him as I continue to post at OD, you are sorely mistaken. But, it will be fun to see you, if you should, continue to insist I am him.**
Why are you blaming me? It was Octopod who snagged you.
**Finally, I was angry when Rennick posted his post under my name. He had aided me in inserting my avatar from his computer, thus was logged under my name.
The matter is done in my opinion.**
The "lady" doth protest too much, methinks.
[SIZE=1]I suppose it is possible, but forgive me if I remain a bit skeptical.[/SIZE]
Lady_America
2003-07-01 15:07 | User Profile
Not the ol' "We're sharing a computer/isp" gag. I don't know how many times I've heard that one on other forums and chatrooms.
I guess the gag is now on you Kurt. :lol:
Why are you blaming me? It was Octopod who snagged you.
Whatever, Kurt. I reread my post and again my reply to you regarded this line in your posting:
**(except that "she" was just as obnoxious as him). **
So, if you read properly what my reply pertained to, you wouldn't have the wrong assumption that you had.
I suppose it is possible, but forgive me if I remain a bit skeptical.
As you should. Skeptics make for a good discussion.
Too bad all of this has been another crimp into a posting that has become off course. Tsk Tsk.
PS: Hey this is fun. I think I may have gotten it. Pull lines and paragraphs from others postings and break it down. Now so bad. I think you guys will make me a better discusser as not only will you guys be able to pull out inconsistencies from my postings, but I'll be able to do so from yours.
il ragno
2003-07-01 18:31 | User Profile
Two ids on one server: the sure sign of a troll, maybe; a lunatic, definitely.
Guaranteed that "Lady Liberty" is Tom channelling his female personality.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 07:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 1 2003, 18:31 * ** Two ids on one server: the sure sign of a troll, maybe; a lunatic, definitely*.
Guaranteed that "Lady Liberty" is Tom channelling his female personality. **
I wonder if I have a female personality.
If I do, I'll bet she's a real tramp.
Walter
na Gaeil is gile
2003-07-03 09:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 3 2003, 01:28 * *I wonder if I have a female personality.
If I do, I'll bet she's a real tramp.**
Thank you for the unwelcome mental image that just generated Walter :shock:
Walter Yannis
2003-07-03 10:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile+Jul 3 2003, 09:59 -->
QUOTE (na Gaeil is gile @ Jul 3 2003, 09:59 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jul 3 2003, 01:28 * *I wonder if I have a female personality. If I do, I'll bet she's a real tramp.**
Thank you for the unwelcome mental image that just generated Walter :shock: **
Yes-siree, 250 lbs of torrid LOVE, baby!
Comin' atcha!
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-07-04 18:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 4 2003, 05:50 * ** > *I wonder if I have a female personality.
If I do, I'll bet she's a real tramp.**
A tramp, posssibly, but a tramp with ambitions.
I'm thinking Eva Peron.
Wintermute **
I'm deeply flattered.
I think. :P
Walter
Franco
2003-07-04 21:32 | User Profile
Let me repeat, as I did on another thread, that Lady A is apparently legit. [If it is the original Lady A from TownHall, of course]. I assume it is. Sounds like her, so to speak.
Frederick William I
2003-07-04 22:57 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Franco@Jul 4 2003, 21:32 * ** Let me repeat, as I did on another thread, that Lady A is apparently legit. [If it is the original Lady A from TownHall, of course]. I assume it is. Sounds like her, so to speak. **
Don't tell me - YOU were over at Townhall.com too? You must have been a little bit tamer back then. I bet you were as tame as that little puppy, although I don't completely recall :lol:
We'll just have to name this forum Townhall Reunion :D
Lady_America
2003-07-04 23:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I+Jul 4 2003, 16:57 -->
QUOTE* (Frederick William I @ Jul 4 2003, 16:57 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Franco@Jul 4 2003, 21:32 * ** Let me repeat, as I did on another thread, that Lady A is apparently legit. [If it is the original Lady A from TownHall, of course]. I assume it is. Sounds like her, so to speak. ** Don't tell me - YOU were over at Townhall.com too? You must have been a little bit tamer back then. I bet you were as tame as that little puppy, although I don't completely recall :lol:
We'll just have to name this forum Townhall Reunion :D **
Almost three years can get a person riled up. My children are also 3 years older and of school age. The country is darker and less freer. The supreme court has changed. And, I'm now living in an area less conservative and full of nap heads who are white and can't identify with their own race.
I had a wonderful time at TownHall. Too bad it had to end. I'm hoping to find my other posts from back then as I saved them on floppy when I bought a new computer.
I believe I have seen other posters also from there, besides yourself and Franco. I think Prodigal Son and know debeaux was there as we exchanged email a couple of times. Then there was a fellow named Longrifle, I think. In fact there were several fellows with a "rifle" as part of their Avatar.
But, its been years since I've last posted and these last few years have been tough on the health, so not so sharp on posting and less tolerant towards other. However, I do need to continue to be cordial because we all have basically the same issues to address and if our anger and arrogance get in the way, then nothing will be said.
But, it's great to be able to once again participate and see and hear old friends. :th:
il ragno
2003-07-05 06:30 | User Profile
Looks like I may owe you an apology, Lady A (having assumed you were a cross-dressing figment of Tom Rennick's imagination.)
I stand chastened & corrected.
Lady_America
2003-07-05 17:33 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 5 2003, 00:30 * ** Looks like I may owe you an apology, Lady A (having assumed you were a cross-dressing figment of Tom Rennick's imagination.)
I stand chastened & corrected. **
Thanks.
Cheers,
Lady
Franco
2003-07-05 18:46 | User Profile
FrederickWilliam I --
Yeah, I was at the old TownHall. It was kinda wimpy compared to some BBs, but it was fun. I knew it was gonna go, and it did go. Too much namin'-the-Jew for the Jew-pals at TH. Ditto the old Asa Hutchinson BB.
Name The Jew = lose your favorite web BB. Simple math, itz.
Amerikwa 2003: a Yiddish production.
:angry:
Lady_America
2003-07-05 19:41 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Franco@Jul 5 2003, 12:46 * ** FrederickWilliam I --
Yeah, I was at the old TownHall. It was kinda wimpy compared to some BBs, but it was fun. I knew it was gonna go, and it did go. Too much namin'-the-Jew for the Jew-pals at TH. Ditto the old Asa Hutchinson BB.
Name The Jew = lose your favorite web BB. Simple math, itz.
Amerikwa 2003: a Yiddish production.
:angry: **
I got the same impression. And, it was too mild. One always had to watch what they wrote. If I remember right, those posts that presented themselves too radical and extreme against the Jews were censured and deleted.
Walter E Kurtz
2003-07-13 20:33 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Raina@Jul 13 2003, 13:45 * ** If governments really wanted to get rid of the sex industry, they would destigmatize sex itself. If promiscuous sex were widely celebrated & applauded, polyamory sanctioned by society, etc. there wouldn't be much demand for prostitution or for-profit pornography. Of course, this isn't what the opponents of prostitution & commercial pornography want at all. They are opponents of sexual freedom & pleasure, not merely the sex industry.
The people who oppose prostitution & porn-for-profit are the same ones who call promiscuous women "disease-carrying sluts" & support abstinence "education." **
Sex is "stigmatized" in America? This is news to me. Every time I have the misfortune to come across an Establishment media source, I hear about the great strides that are being made by people who like to engage in recreational sodomy.
Walter E Kurtz
2003-07-13 20:34 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Raina@Jul 13 2003, 13:45 * **
The people who oppose prostitution & porn-for-profit are the same ones who call promiscuous women "disease-carrying sluts" & support abstinence "education." **
I don't support abstinence education...but I do call a spade a spade.
Edana
2003-07-13 21:30 | User Profile
I've never seen any major figure in the mass media promote sexual liberalism.
Do you live in some dark, secluded university enclave full of people who think they are the radical avante garde against the oppressive, reactionary forces of the world around them?
Walter E Kurtz
2003-07-13 21:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Raina+Jul 13 2003, 15:23 -->
QUOTE (Raina @ Jul 13 2003, 15:23 ) <!--QuoteBegin-AntiYuppie@Jul 13 2003, 14:44 * ** I wasn't aware that sexuality was "stigmatized" in America, and if it were I'm not sure what "the government" could do to possibly de-stigmatize it.* Do you watch much television? There are endless specials on 20/20 & Dateline & c. about the horrors of prostitution & pornography. I just read an article on Salon that said women don't even have a sex drive, let alone one that needs liberating. I read another from some "gay" man about how he's "respectable" & monogamous & has no respect for gays who aren't. I've never seen any major figure in the mass media promote sexual liberalism. If they're so common, can you name one? Even one?
**The fact of the matter is that no society in history has been as obsessed with sex as the US today, if we make the safe assumption that our mass entertainment industry more or less reflects the interests, tastes, and attitudes of its consumers. **
There are certainly some European countries where sex is less stigmatized. I don't see much pro-sex material in US entertainment. I see plenty of jokes about how stupid hookers are, or about how free love belongs in the 1960s. Certainly, sex is a valuable commodity - but business isn't the same as pleasure & the fact that sex sells doesn't mean sexual liberalism has won. Quite the opposite - sexual liberalism would be bad for business, because few are going to pay for what they could get for free.
As another example of the "stigmatization" of sex in US society, go into any bar or restaurant and people openly and loudly discuss the details of their sex lives in public, while discussing politics or religion in public is considered taboo. The most perverted sexual activities (homosexuality, etc) are perfectly acceptable in US society. Political dissent, or even open discussion, of taboo issues is not.
I hear people in public discussing politics, religion & sports more often than sex.
Homosexuality is perverted? So I suppose the ancient Greeks & Romans need to be excised from the list of Western cultures. How can you criticize Jews when you take their exact line on homosexuality? Surely, you're aware that there was no such stigma against same-sex activities until the Jewish religion & its spinoffs spread into Europe.
Finally, there are very good biological reasons for why sexually promiscuous women are stigmatized in normal, healthy societies. A man who unknowingly winds up taking care of somebody else's spawn on account of his promiscuous wife stands to lose a lot more in terms of his biological fitness than the wife would lose if her husband were to impregnate another woman. Promoters of women's lib and hedonism blame "Christianity" for condemnations of female promiscuity, when in fact they exist in almost all societies as a simple consequence of differential reproductive investments between the sexes.
That analysis ignores the fact that sex need not lead to pregnancy. This is particularly true with the recent advances in birth control methods. Genetic testing can easily determine who any particular child "belongs" to. Also, the fact that adoptions are relatively common shows that people can be just as happy taking care of "somebody else's spawn." The simple fact of the matter is that prostitution & porn-for-profit thrive most in societies where sexual liberalism has made little or no ground. If you want to eliminate the sex industry, get rid of the ridiculous double standards that keep it alive. **
Raina, it harms your credibility when you make outrageous assertions to the effect that prostitution is some sort of positive good. You know, in the former USSR, prostitution has largely been "destigmatized" and the result is that Jewish mafia thugs enslave and sell young women with relative impunity. Forgive me if I don't fully grasp your argument, but I fail to see the social benefits that might accrue if America were to fully embrace the institution of Jewish sponsored sexual slavery.
RE: Homosexuality
You stated that the stigma against homosexual conduct is purely a Judeo-Christian invention. This is patently false. The Saxons, long before they accepted the Faith, would occasionally drown sodomites in peat bogs for engaging in their chosen vice.
Edana
2003-07-13 21:38 | User Profile
Surely, you're aware that there was no such stigma against same-sex activities until the Jewish religion & its spinoffs spread into Europe.
Surely, you can back this up with some proof.
Walter E Kurtz
2003-07-13 23:52 | User Profile
Good points, Wintermute...thanx.
Wayland
2003-07-13 23:59 | User Profile
In ancient Greece and more especially Rome the homosexual act wasn't necessarily condemned but any man who exhibited effeminacy or submissiveness was genuinely despised. If a modern day gay pride parade would have been run through Rome in the time of Augustus the Romans would have crucified every last one of the prancing sissies.
Edana
2003-07-14 00:04 | User Profile
Hi Wintermute. I've heard that in pre-Christian (non-Roman/Greek) Europe, many stigmas against homosexuality were related to reduction in status and men who take it in the pooper were met with derision and ridicule. Your take or any info/corrections you have on this issue would be appreciated.
Edana
2003-07-14 02:15 | User Profile
The entire MTV channel and just about everyone on it.
Edana
2003-07-14 02:30 | User Profile
Madonna, Christina Aguilera, and the entire Sex and the City series ring a bell? Maybe you are living in a nunnery and haven't heard of those people?
Here, watch the "dirrty" video. It's soooo rebellious and "liberating".
[url=http://www.mtv.com/bands/az/aguilera_christina/audvid.jhtml]click[/url]
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-14 02:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by rban@Jul 13 2003, 18:39 * This just proves and reinforces that Aryan genes flow and assert themselves in my pure and just bloodline. I am truly a member of the superior master race.*
You, too?
:rock:
Walter Yannis
2003-07-14 07:35 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 23:39 * ** The taboo-class loathing of homosexuality, complete with fear and trembling, is Jewish exclusively, and only travels with Jewish religion. **
I think that you're probably right about that.
St. Paul in the first chapter of Romans equates homosexuality (both male and female) with Paganism.
To tell you the truth, I never really understood St. Paul's argument here, but then again the Wars of the Reformation were in large part fought over Romans (at least formally) and St. Peter himself tells us that St. Paul is hard to understand, so I'll cut myself some slack and ask that you take this with a grain of salt.
St. Paul, I think, was getting at the notion that Monotheism isn't completely "natural," which is why Monotheism rejects things like sodomy, which might be considered "natural." The thing is that we Monotheists don't judge by Nature's standards.
Homosexuality is so common that I think we have to say that it's "natural" in the broadest sense. Sodomoy clearly has nothing to do with the procreative function that is obviously central to sexual intercourse, which understandably gave rise to the idea that it was utterly "unnatural". However, more recently scientiests such as Edward O. Wilson theorized that homosexuality evolved as an altruistic behaviour, providing a survival advantage to the tribe (the evolutionary unit of selection) and thus the gene for it was carried forward by kin selection. It's an interesting theory, and it helps explain why male homosexuals tend to be artsy-fartsy types, more religious on average, more caring and sensitive - they were probably the childless medicine men and care-givers of our cavemen ancestors. These things really can't be said of lesbians from my experience, who remain something of a mystery for me, but the point being that homosexuality probably did provide some sort of survival advantage to our Paleolithic ancestors, and thus, in a broad sense, homosexuality is "natural."
But that's not the end of the discussion for us Monotheists. The point is that the worship of the One God transcends Nature, and therefore things that may be "natural" as judged by Nature's norms turn out to be "abominations" when judged by the standard of Nature's God.
St. Paul equates homosexuality with worshiping the creature instead of the Creator, who stands OUTSIDE Nature. Paul tells us that man was subject to the natural law from the beginning, but remained sinless (!) because there was no Devine standard by which to judge him. For Paul, the Law that brings Death (in the sense of knowledge of good and evil) came only with Moses, because it came from OUTSIDE Nature. That Law provided a standard that convicted the world, and inevitably brought spiritual death because no man could hope to live up to its letter, and even the tiniest deviation from its dictates meaning instantaneous spiritual death. For this reason, Christ's Salvation is precisely salvation from the opression of the Law itself, under which we Christians no longer live and by which we are no longer judged.
But again I digress.
Within the "natural law", maybe homosexuality makes sense, or at least enough sense that homosexuals should be tolerated to some extent, but we monotheists don't worship Nature. For us, Nature is evidence for the qualities of the Mind of the Creator, but Revelation trumps our conclusions drawn from our observations of Creation. In Revelation we have direct access to the Mind Beyond, which instructs us that homosexuality is an abomination, and that homosexuals are people prone to the worst kind of anti-social vice.
I would add that St. Paul lumps homosexuality together with drunkeness, adultery & fornication, etc. For him, it's all just vice. Sodomy = alcoholism = adultery. I believe he's right about that. Sodomy is a terribly destructive thing, as are these other vices. The medical problems experienced by sodomites are legion. St. Paul says as much in Romans 1, something about "taking into their bodies" the just wages of their actions. I take it that he was speaking of some venereal disease, don't know what it might have been back then. But then again, the same can be said of the alcoholic, the drug addict, the overeater, the adulterer and fornicator. Is the sin of my egregiously fat neighbor Church Lady any better than that of the fag at the other end of the pew? I think not. Love the sinner but hate the sin, indeed.
Chesterton wrote something to the effect that Pagans have always believed in a transcendant Creator, but that man is tempted to Paganism because he quickly grows weary of staring into the Monotheistic Sun. Pagans just didn't see the point of spending a lot of energy worshiping something they couldn't relate to via their own experience. Worship of the Creator - who stands outside everything we know and feel a kinship to - is indeed an awesome burden.
I just re-read that, and I think I need to think about this more. But I'll post it anyway with the right to revise, as my humble contribution to this discussion.
Walter
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-14 13:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 14 2003, 01:35 * St. Paul equates homosexuality with worshiping the creature instead of the Creator, who stands OUTSIDE Nature. Paul tells us that man was subject to the natural law from the beginning, but remained sinless (!) because there was no Divine standard by which to judge him. For Paul, the Law that brings Death (in the sense of knowledge of good and evil) came only with Moses, because it came from OUTSIDE Nature. That Law provided a standard that convicted the world, and inevitably brought spiritual death because no man could hope to live up to its letter, [with] even the tiniest deviation from its dictates meaning instantaneous spiritual death. For this reason, Christ's Salvation is precisely salvation from the op[p]ression of the Law itself, under which we Christians no longer live and by which we are no longer judged.*
Nietzsche had it right - Christianity at once cultivates and palliates psychosis.
Let's go f*ck some Frauleins and then feel sorry about it.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-17 17:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Jul 14 2003, 13:08 -->
QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jul 14 2003, 13:08 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jul 14 2003, 01:35 * St. Paul equates homosexuality with worshiping the creature instead of the Creator, who stands OUTSIDE Nature.ÃÂ Paul tells us that man was subject to the natural law from the beginning, but remained sinless (!) because there was no Divine standard by which to judge him.ÃÂ For Paul, the Law that brings Death (in the sense of knowledge of good and evil) came only with Moses, because it came from OUTSIDE Nature.ÃÂ That Law provided a standard that convicted the world, and inevitably brought spiritual death because no man could hope to live up to its letter, [with] even the tiniest deviation from its dictates meaning instantaneous spiritual death.ÃÂ For this reason, Christ's Salvation is precisely salvation from the op[p]ression of the Law itself, under which we Christians no longer live and by which we are no longer judged.* Nietzsche had it right - Christianity at once cultivates and palliates psychosis.
Let's go f*ck some Frauleins and then feel sorry about it. **
Neo:
I think thatôs probably true.
Itôs just that psychosis is a facet of genuine spiritual strength, it is not its negation as I believe you imply.
Real religion can be seen as a sort of controlled psychosis. Our need for religious madness is an evolved trait that we are not free to change.
I think that the spiritually aware man looks this truth about himself in the eye and accepts it, without judgement. The strong man can accept his own need for the dionysian and use it to his and his peopleôs advantage, whereas the weak man pretends to rise above it and often winds up really going mad, perhaps like Nietszche himself. A would-be superman weeping over an abused horse before raving out his final days in a damp asylum is for me a perfect symbol of where all this talk of fearlessly embracing the abyss leads.
As to repenting of fits of temper, Yahweh Himself repented of some of his rash actions, at least I think thatôs implied in the story of Noah and the rainbow, to name but one example. Itôs not an easy trick, this balancing of the rational with the pre-rational. Vladimir Nabokov wrote that one should read a great work of fiction simultaneously using the emotional and rational aspects of our character. Not in the higher cortex of the reason, nor yet deep in the limbic system of our emotions, but somewhere in between, say the brain stem. I try to live my life that way, but as I said it donôt come easy.
To paraphrase Guatama, all life is suffering but the Way makes suffering tolerable.
Neo, may I suggest that you re-read the great novels of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky? The antidote may well lie there.
Warmest regards,
Walter
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-18 13:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jul 17 2003, 11:43 -->
QUOTE (Walter Yannis @ Jul 17 2003, 11:43 )
QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jul 14 2003, 13:08 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jul 14 2003, 01:35 * St. Paul equates homosexuality with worshiping the creature instead of the Creator, who stands OUTSIDE Nature.ÃÂ Paul tells us that man was subject to the natural law from the beginning, but remained sinless (!) because there was no Divine standard by which to judge him.ÃÂ For Paul, the Law that brings Death (in the sense of knowledge of good and evil) came only with Moses, because it came from OUTSIDE Nature.ÃÂ That Law provided a standard that convicted the world, and inevitably brought spiritual death because no man could hope to live up to its letter, [with] even the tiniest deviation from its dictates meaning instantaneous spiritual death.ÃÂ For this reason, Christ's Salvation is precisely salvation from the op[p]ression of the Law itself, under which we Christians no longer live and by which we are no longer judged.* Nietzsche had it right - Christianity at once cultivates and palliates psychosis.
Let's go f*ck some Frauleins and then feel sorry about it. **
Neo:
I think thatôs probably true.
Itôs just that psychosis is a facet of genuine spiritual strength, it is not its negation as I believe you imply.
Real religion can be seen as a sort of controlled psychosis. Our need for religious madness is an evolved trait that we are not free to change.
I think that the spiritually aware man looks this truth about himself in the eye and accepts it, without judgment. The strong man can accept his own need for the dionysian and use it to his and his peopleôs advantage, whereas the weak man pretends to rise above it and often winds up really going mad, perhaps like Nietszche himself. A would-be superman weeping over an abused horse before raving out his final days in a damp asylum is for me a perfect symbol of where all this talk of fearlessly embracing the abyss leads.
As to repenting of fits of temper, Yahweh Himself repented of some of his rash actions, at least I think thatôs implied in the story of Noah and the rainbow, to name but one example. Itôs not an easy trick, this balancing of the rational with the pre-rational. Vladimir Nabokov wrote that one should read a great work of fiction simultaneously using the emotional and rational aspects of our character. Not in the higher cortex of the reason, nor yet deep in the limbic system of our emotions, but somewhere in between, say the brain stem. I try to live my life that way, but as I said it donôt come easy.
To paraphrase Guatama, all life is suffering but the Way makes suffering tolerable.
Neo, may I suggest that you re-read the great novels of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky? The antidote may well lie there.
Warmest regards,
Walter**
Itôs just that psychosis is a facet of genuine spiritual strength, it is not its negation as I believe you imply.
More likely, psychosis is that which, absent superstitious perspective, it appears to be, i.e., organic mental disorder.
Real religion can be seen as a sort of controlled psychosis.ÃÂ Our need for religious madness is an evolved trait that we are not free to change.
Best get the women and children indoors, when someone starts talking about "real" religion. There's an auto-da-fe, a lynching, a witch trial, an inquisition, or a crusade afoot. Frauleins beware! The need for religious madness is otherwise the drunkard's need for his drink.
I think that the spiritually aware man looks this truth about himself in the eye and accepts it, without judgment.àThe strong man can accept his own need for the dionysian and use it to his and his peopleôs advantage, whereas the weak man pretends to rise above it and often winds up really going mad, perhaps like Nietszche himself.
The "spiritually aware" "strong man" is a stoopid primitive, standing in the perpetual service, contra his own corporate interest, of international aliens who provide him with a comforting and flattering myth structure and belief system. And we await your scholarly contribution to the biographical material on Nietzsche in terms of this alleged "weakness".
**As to repenting of fits of temper, Yahweh Himself repented of some of his rash actions, at least I think thatôs implied in the story of Noah and the rainbow, to name but one example.àItôs not an easy trick, this balancing of the rational with the pre-rational. **
And how do you propose to perform the trick of raising the Boniface, now that it lies fractured beneath miles of deep water?
To paraphrase Guatama, all life is suffering but the Way makes suffering tolerable.
More precisely, the Eight-fold Way seeks to extinquish desire, the source of man's suffering. This is not the Way of Western man, however, he who seeks to satisfy his desires - foolishly, though, in his historic Faustian Pacts with the psychotic aliens within Church and Jewry.
Neo, may I suggest that you re-read the great novels of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky?ÃÂ The antidote may well lie there.
Thanks for the suggestion. Please review the "Draka" series by Steve Stirling.
Hugs and Kisses, as always,
Neo
weisbrot
2003-07-18 15:39 | User Profile
Walter-
You could have saved yourself hours of contemplation if you had only known to consult the List of Answers (see helpful transcription below). All knowledge and wisdom is on display within the List.
Of course, the omniscience/omnipotence revealed within that List-ing seemingly takes a hit from the apparent Denial of Infallibility in the Summary Statement, but rest assured that the statement reflects only the modesty of an accomplished Sophist.
Behold, mortal one:
** 1) C 2) B 3) D 4) E 5) B 6) D 7) A 8) C 9) B 10)D 11)B 12)D 13)B 14)A 15)B 16)C 17)C 18)A 19)C 20)B 21)D 22)D 23)A 24)D 25)B 26)D 27)A 28)A 29)D 30)B 31)D 32)B 33)B 34)C 35)B 36)B 37)D 38)A 39)B 40)C
Does anyone have a list of the correct answers or a list from a higher score?**
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-18 17:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Jul 18 2003, 09:39 * [NN:] Does anyone have a list of the correct answers or a list from a higher score?*
Been wondering why this seems to bug you so, Brother Weisbrot.
Did I, perchance, make an intolerably perfect score on the IQ test?
Had I not, I wanted to learn something from any mistakes I might have made.
Do you like to learn from your mistakes, Brother Weisbrot?
weisbrot
2003-07-18 17:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jul 18 2003, 13:15 * ** Did I, perchance, make an intolerably perfect score on the IQ test?*
Hard to say, Brother NeoN.
Would you mind telling us once more your score?
Do you like to learn from your mistakes, Brother Weisbrot?
Every single day. I've found that humility, self-awareness and prayer have been invaluable in this pursuit.
Of course, the ability to access a competent educator is also of great value. Those individuals are far less abundant than many lead themselves to believe.
NeoNietzsche
2003-07-19 00:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot+Jul 18 2003, 11:51 -->
QUOTE (weisbrot @ Jul 18 2003, 11:51 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jul 18 2003, 13:15 * ** Did I, perchance, make an intolerably perfect score on the IQ test?* Hard to say, Brother NeoN.
Would you mind telling us once more your score?
Do you like to learn from your mistakes, Brother Weisbrot?
Every single day. I've found that humility, self-awareness and prayer have been invaluable in this pursuit.
Of course, the ability to access a competent educator is also of great value. Those individuals are far less abundant than many lead themselves to believe.**
Would you mind telling us once more your score?
I would not be so cruel - since the single mention of it, amidst the reports of others with marginally lower scores, seems to have multiply and painfully echoed in your brain.
** I've found that humility, self-awareness and prayer have been invaluable in this pursuit [of learning from mistakes].**
How much occasion, during the day, do you have for exercising these virtues, Brother Weisbrot?
Avalanche
2003-07-20 15:54 | User Profile
Walter: It's an interesting theory, and it helps explain why male homosexuals tend to be artsy-fartsy types, more religious on average, more caring and sensitive - they were probably the childless medicine men and care-givers of our cavemen ancestors. These things really can't be said of lesbians from my experience, who remain something of a mystery for me, but the point being that homosexuality probably did provide some sort of survival advantage to our Paleolithic ancestors, and thus, in a broad sense, homosexuality is "natural."
Let me suggest that lesbians, as women who were rather more controlled than men "back then" and "through time," never had the ability to 'self-select' their genetic pass-alongs. Lesbian women didn't have the alternate path of shamanism to allow her/them to solidify any genetic tendencies toward sex-preferences. I don't know, but I doubt it was "childless" medicine men, probably lots of them fathered children too.
And, the lesbian women would have been 'forced' into mariage and childbearing merely because there WAS no alternate path -- and when nunneries became a possibility: a.) they didn't have children (generally :o ) and b.) it was too short a time-frame to allow for the "fixing" of a genetic proclivity.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-22 09:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Jul 20 2003, 15:54 * ** > Walter:ÃÂ It's an interesting theory, and it helps explain why male homosexuals tend to be artsy-fartsy types, more religious on average, more caring and sensitive - they were probably the childless medicine men and care-givers of our cavemen ancestors. These things really can't be said of lesbians from my experience, who remain something of a mystery for me, but the point being that homosexuality probably did provide some sort of survival advantage to our Paleolithic ancestors, and thus, in a broad sense, homosexuality is "natural."*
Let me suggest that lesbians, as women who were rather more controlled than men "back then" and "through time," never had the ability to 'self-select' their genetic pass-alongs. Lesbian women didn't have the alternate path of shamanism to allow her/them to solidify any genetic tendencies toward sex-preferences. I don't know, but I doubt it was "childless" medicine men, probably lots of them fathered children too.
And, the lesbian women would have been 'forced' into mariage and childbearing merely because there WAS no alternate path -- and when nunneries became a possibility: a.) they didn't have children (generally :o ) and b.) it was too short a time-frame to allow for the "fixing" of a genetic proclivity. **
Avalanche
Thatôs an interesting idea.
I was thinking here of Edward O. Wilsonôs thing on this, if I recall it was in On Human Nature.
Whatever it was, if homosexuality has a genetic component it arose because it somehow helped the tribe survive. It makes more sense in terms of men, because men are in a genetic sense much more expendable than women - one man could impregnate any number of womean, so the tribe could more readily afford to lose males in war and hunting. I donôt see how this could apply to women for the same reasons. That is, since women have the wombs and are therefore basically irreplaceable in the genetic sense, how could a same-sex attraction that would tend to limit use of that womb make Darwinian sense?
Iôm in Spain on business, writing this from an internet cafe. Iôm having a hell of a time with this keyboard, that writes little tilled nôs and upside down question marks.
Iôm going to my first bullfight, probably tomorrow. I wonder what Iôll think of that. As a good Midwestern farm boy, unnecessary cruelty to animals should violate my sense of propriety, but we shall see.
Ole!
Walter
Avalanche
2003-07-22 13:46 | User Profile
**Walter: That is, since women have the wombs and are therefore basically irreplaceable in the genetic sense, how could a same-sex attraction that would tend to limit use of that womb make Darwinian sense? ** It wouldn't have limited the use of that womb -- women didn't have the choice to say "no sex, no men, no childbearing: I only like other women!"
They married whomever daddy sold them to, and bore his childer, will they, nil they. Thus the 'control' of the womb was out of their hands for many generations. (Even if they KNEW they wanted a nunnery or celibacy for life rather than mate with a male, they probably didn't have that choice for much of human history (and prehistory?).
Have fun in Europe, Walter!!
Leveller
2003-07-22 22:18 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 22 2003, 09:39 * ** Iôm going to my first bullfight, probably tomorrow. I wonder what Iôll think of that. As a good Midwestern farm boy, unnecessary cruelty to animals should violate my sense of propriety, but we shall see.
Ole! **
The worst thing about bullfighting is when the bulls have their horns ground to make them sensitive and make the bulls reluctant to attack. Not a fair fight at all. I don't know how widespread it is but it does go on.
Ole!
Avalanche
2003-07-23 03:14 | User Profile
Whatever it was, if homosexuality has a genetic component it arose because it somehow helped the tribe survive.
Or, consider: it need only NOT have a negative effect on reproduction -- e.g., the appendix. Nature doesn't CARE what's up, so long as the species continues. There may have been no survival benefit to it, but also not survival 'hit' to end it.
**AY: E.O. Wilson's suggestion that homosexuals had "helper" roles as altruistic non-reproductives in primitive human societies is consistent with what occurs in many animal societies ** hhmmm, the problem with this is: the 'helper' roles as non-breeders would NOT carry on their genes to the next generations, no? So there is no survivability benefit to helper roles either...
Avalanche
2003-07-23 03:45 | User Profile
Unlike the appendix, homosexuality in and of itself is deleterious because an exclusive homosexual is non-reproductive. Only if the 'exclusive' homosexual didn't also marry/procreate to provide a camouflage for his preferences. Yes, there were tribes where the homosexual shamans didn't reproduce, but lots and lots of homosexuals probably didn't get the job and had to 'fit in.'
Avalanche
2003-07-23 14:09 | User Profile
I understand that good demographic data shows that whole postwar populations of woman have a massive bias in favor of male children, as if something in them 'knew' more males were needed, and was also able to provide the same. I'd suggest, just off the top of my head, stress and other hormones in the mateless females. The 'living conditions' of the left-over women would naturally affect their immune and repro systems, and that 'soup' could affect what sperm reaches the egg.
Thanks Wintermute, for the explanation of the 'use' of no-procreating helpers. Makes sense.
Walter Yannis
2003-08-02 12:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 22 2003, 22:49 * ** > Whatever it was, if homosexuality has a genetic component it arose because it somehow helped the tribe survive*
E.O. Wilson's suggestion that homosexuals had "helper" roles as altruistic non-reproductives in primitive human societies is consistent with what occurs in many animal societies where only the alpha males have access to the females. In wolves, for example, only the alpha male gets to breed, thus homosexual mounting by the non-reproductive wolves is fairly common. While it has always been interpreted as strictly a matter of "dominance behavior," it's also pretty clear that it also functions as a sexual release for non-breeding male wolves.
Iôm going to my first bullfight, probably tomorrow. I wonder what Iôll think of that. As a good Midwestern farm boy, unnecessary cruelty to animals should violate my sense of propriety, but we shall see.
When I was in Madrid about a decade ago, I attended a bullfight. I found the whole affair rather boring, actually. One of the problems was that the picador mauled the bull so terribly that it had hardly any strength or stamina left to offer the matador any real challenge or fight. It was so bad that I thought I could have done just as well as the matador "fighting" a half-dead bull. **
You know, it occurred to me that Wilson really defended homosexuals based on this theory, but I think inconsistently.
He talks about - can't remember the word - the often monstrous manifestations of some latent traits in changed environments. Thus he explains the cannibalism of the Aztecs as a bizarre manifestation man's evolved taste for meat, and the extreme subjugation of women in some societies as a grotesque manifestation o the somewhat differnet roles men and women played in the hunter-gather economy in which we evolved.
So, too, it would seem, homosexuality is a sort of minor trait that wouldn't tend to manifest itself very strongly in our hunter-gather, natural state in which we evolved. Yet, nobody can call the gay culture of San Francisco a minor manifestation. It is in fact a grotesquely exaggerated phenomenon. Whatever evolutionary advantage a homosexual gene may have provided the group in the Pealoelithic world surely does not apply to a moder, technological society. Surely the disease attendant upon sodomy alone is enough to convince any objective observer of that. But what about the more intangible damage acceptance of sodomy has on society, the strength of heterosexual institutions. the birthrate, the safety of children, drug abuse, alcoholism, and so forth?
Wilson irritates with his double standards, frankly speaking. He really adopts (for propaganda purposes?) a PeeCee moral stance that he inconsistently applies. He bemoans the subjugation of women as horribly distended manifestation of a small natural tendency to concentrate somewhat more than men on child rearing and gathering vegetables; he condemns "racism" as an atavistic "tribalism" that must be "hobbled" , yet in the next breath indulges the leather culture of Mapplethorpe as being normal and acceptable.
Why should that be? The sort of mass sodomy that the gay culture engages in - often with hundreds of sexual contacts in a year - is the root cause of terrible social problems, on par with inter-ethnic war, the abuse of women, and mass slaughter of prisoners by Aztecs for meat.
I agree with Sir Arthur Kieth that we must embrace our entire genetic inheritance, and try to accommodate it with reason. Surely allowing such grotesque manifestations of latent tendencies such as mass slaughter of humans for meat and mass sodomy that spreads disease and damages marriage should not be allowed.
As usual, I agree with David Duke. Homosexuals should not be condemned, for it probably isn't their fault. At the same time, society must not allow their desires to damage the health of society. With billions going to AIDS treatment and with homosexuals having an average life span of 30 years, surely they've become a parasitic group that must be controlled for the good of us all.
Walter
Okiereddust
2003-08-02 13:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Aug 2 2003, 12:55 * *As usual, I agree with David Duke. Homosexuals should not be condemned, for it probably isn't their fault. **
Excuse me for being picky, but where on earth did this little liberal zepher float into your thinking from? How did homosexuals acquire the same minority status as blacks - "it's not their fault they're black"?
Walter Yannis
2003-08-16 16:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Aug 2 2003, 13:07 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Aug 2 2003, 13:07 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Aug 2 2003, 12:55 * *As usual, I agree with David Duke.ÃÂ Homosexuals should not be condemned, for it probably isn't their fault.ÃÂ ** Excuse me for being picky, but where on earth did this little liberal zepher float into your thinking from? How did homosexuals acquire the same minority status as blacks - "it's not their fault they're black"? **
Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been on the road.
Well, I don't think that people should be persecuted because they have homosexual feelings. But they should be held to standards of conduct.
Tolerance of sodomy by society is proving suicidal. We'ver allowed a viper to nurse at our breast. Billions of dollars that should be going to raising our children is being spent to subsidize the desires of sodomites. They've become an ever increasingly grasping parasitic group on our collective body, and that must stop.
Hey, man, love the sinner but hate the sin.
What could be more Chrisian than that?
Walter
il ragno
2003-08-16 21:56 | User Profile
**Hey, man, love the sinner but hate the sin.
What could be more Chrisian than that?**
Give the Carr Brothers a big hug for me, then.