Until next spring....
Old pictures.....looking at them tempts me. Look, looook!
Hmmm, maybe there are a few more weekends in this season.
This election is pretty much bound to be a mess in some way or another. I do care about it. But not enough to invest a lot of emotional capital in just one election. The Founders were smart enough to try to not let any one thing impact us all too much. So the decline of the Republic is slowed and slowed. It seems to me that Bush is a window of opportunity mainly to try to clean up the judiciary and the socialist "experts." The clean up attempts have this way of failing too, as long as the people are corrupt. For there is no government that can somehow lift up a generally corrupt, narcissistic and wicked people. That's the real issue. Elections are symptoms of things, not cures.
I voted, have you? If you did, who did you vote for and why?
Later!
22 comments:
I didn't vote. Democracy my butt.
Do you think that the choice of president will influence our daily lives very much at all?
Jerry
"I voted Constitutional Party. Let me guess, you voted. . . Kerry/Edwards?"
I will write some about the election on the front page. As far as that goes....
Here is what I did. I asked the librarian how to vote a straight ticket and pointed straight down the Democratic ticket. Her eyes lit up with a joyous light! For she is a Delawarean librarian.
Then I voted straight Republican.
I can be mighty tricky like that. But she sure was mighty nice to me. So I had the best of all worlds, the nicety of that!
Your vote was potent. But it was premature. Such things can be tricky....
So how about some philosophizin' on it.
For a man, what's the difference between being a barbarian and an effeminate? For a woman, what's the difference between being a slut or a prissy prude?
"Do you think that the choice of president will influence our daily lives very much at all?"
Because of the window of opportunity, yes, I did not think it would open so wide.
How shall I put things now. Hopefully, anyone in government whose occult pattern of thought matches Nazism will now die. Let these dead bury their Selves.
I suppose few will object to that! For many mental retards can yet admit that the Nazis were Evil. I would even prefer Italian fascism over Nazism.
Fascism and Nazism seem to be ongoing themes in your writing. Are you a fascist? do you fear that our country is unknowingly succoming to these patterns of thought? Where is the obsession from?
Jerry
Fears, obsessions....but no facts, logic or proof for lil' Jerry nor Hanky. They seem the same.
For..."Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof...through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest frisson of doubt and shame into he previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality."
(Kirk and Madsen "After The Ball" :152-153)
Wait, these American gay activists are matching Nazi modes of propaganda. And you both have matched their methods too. Why do you think that is? It's funny watching you guys walk patterns that you don't even know are there. You are conditioned. That's about it for you. So you do not seem to have anything to say that is not banal, mere pop-culture conditioning. It's funny to see you guided about by the manipulators of images in entertainment, mainly effeminates.
How many "gay" MCs are there in rap?
Okay, how many self defined gays deal in fashion and movie production?
The Word vs. mere image...Nazism dealt in the triumph of the image over the word. The thought and the word should come first and the image second, you see. It has to do with effeminacy.
But by the way you feel your conditioning becomes apparent. So you say that anything that does not fit pop-culture must be motivated by fear, secret obsessions, etc. Just like Hank immediately thinks of secret obsessions, etc.
You're both such good lil' boys, all nice and conditioned with your lil' feelings about things. Did you get over your hurt feelings yet? You make yourselves the material of satire.
Enough about that. What I am doing now is kicking the cadaver of the Democratic party. This is one of the main issues these proto-Nazi degenerates just lost on, decadence and moral values. This surprised me. But the nicety of the country hid a spine of steal and they took out the degenerate cities of this Republic. They refuse to be dragged down into their decadence and corruption with them.
Well, it's sort of fun to kick the cadaver....so kick, kick. You might say that I get a kick out of it!
Remember Jerry, next time try to make your comments on politics and philosophy have something to do with facts, logic and proof.
But in Politics there are so few facts, and logically they are hard to prove. Facts? Lies? Who knows? It's a bunch of acting.
I'm not Hank.
Jerry
You think along the same lack of lines as Hanks does.
I bring to light the gay identity as I criticize the very notion and pattern of the image/identity. Hanks feels, "That means he wants to go skinny dipping with me!"
I bring to light Italian fascism as I criticize that pattern. You feel, "That means he wants be a fascist!"
It's a very similar conditioning to Hank's. To absurdity and beyond!
You both think that everything is just an "act"/image. All there is, is whatever is currently fashionable, pop-culture, image, fashion. But behind the image is what supposedly really motivates everyone, the "reality" of crass feelings and base appetites. It is beyond your grasp that anyone could even possibly be more noble than that. Why? Because for a narcissist that is all there is, their own Selves, their own feelings. So then they assume everyone is as they are and project it onto everyone else.
Projection is the only way to judge something for those who worship their Selves. They know being ruled by feelings is wrong. So they project it and condemn it in someone else. If they could sit in judgment on their Selves and actually repent of anything then they would not project.
Al Gore says of Bush, "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!
.....oh, by the way, the world is going to end in a global catastrophe if you do not give me totalitarian control of your life."
Those who lack judgment, condemn their Selves at almost every turn. Jesus noted that the unrepentant deal in logs and specks. You have to have the capability of "really" judging your Self by a Conscience that is not just you. A lot of people choose to crucify the Word instead. Ironically, they tend to figure out that they were never that great on their own. Then, they begin to kill themselves in various ways.
At any rate, given your pop-culture conditioning, beginning to think may take a while for you.
Think on this, if you can:
Maybe if everything is just an act then you are just acting like you can think? But perhaps you'll have to think, if you try to act like you can?
When Hitler came to power Karl Kraus said, "When it comes to Hitler, I can't think of anything to say."
"But in Politics there are so few facts, and logically they are hard to prove."
How about this. Name the issue you think is like that.
I am glad you did not say, "My effect is to achieved with reference to facts, logic and proof!"
Because....it is not.
Did you just call me gay? I Feeeel that you are mistaken. I don't get it, because Hank wants to go skinny dipping with you I am gay? It makes me laugh.
Jerry
"Did you just call me gay?"
If your mind immediately goes to that question then you are too concerned with your identity. I said you are thinking along the same lack of lines as Hank tried to. In the same pattern....
But anyway, what is being gay to you? Perhaps that way, I'll know what you feel being gay is.
being gay is what happens when a man has sex with another man.
Jerry
Is this what you are accusing me of? No fancy word dances here.
Jerry
I did not say anything about your behavior.
As I recall, I said that your mode of conditioning has been like a gay activist, like Kirk and Madsen. Your ontology is essentially the same. Yet the intellectuals (Good or Evil) tend to know what is going on, sardonically note it and use the pattern depending on what side they are on.
The general people of the pop-culture (I would use the symbol of a Herd, for them.) who spread a certain mode of conditioning actually seem to have no idea what they're doing. They sort of just flow along, go with the flow.
There are patterns to "happenstance" and going with the flow. The normal teenager likes to say, "It just happened." Yes, of course it did.
(The flow of gay activists is very like the pattern of Nazism, in fact the pattern and mode of propaganda matches almost precisely. It probably has to do with divorce and effeminacy, which is then associated with being "gay.")
These reports indicate that 46% to 64% of boys with untreated gender identity disorders develop homosexual or bisexual orientation during their adolescence.
(Davenport CW: A follow-up study of 10
feminine boys. Arch Sex Behavior. 15: 511, 1986.)
(Green R: The "sissy boy syndrome" and the development of homosexuality, New Haven. Conn. 1987, Yale University Press.)
(Zucker K.J: Cross-gender-identified children. In Steiner BW, editor Gender dysphoria: development. research, management New York, 1985, Plenum Press.)
(Zuger B: Early effeminate behavior in boys: outcome and significance for homosexuality, J Nerv Ment Dis 172: 90, 1984.)
(Zuger B: Is early effeminate behavior in boys early homosexuality? Comp. Psychiatry 29: 509, 1988.)
As I recall, a little while back gay activists began to work against there being any diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder. And Zuger was one of the ones to work against them. It's not like he is some Big Meanie, either. It is actually best if boys are not effeminate, like Klebold and Harris of Colombine, etc.
Noting the general pattern as far as people with a sexual disorientation who tend to be the ones saying, "I'm oriented!" Yes, I think there is that element. It is a minority, in a minority. There is historical evidence that if sexual taboos change then the minority in the minority gets bigger. What people do not seem to want to understand these days on any issue is that just because something comes to be manifest physically, that does not mean anything.
"Most sissies will grow up to be homosexuals, and most gay men were sissies as children...
Despite the provocative and politically incorrect
nature of that statement, it fits the evidence.
In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented,
and significant finding in the entire field of sexual
orientation research and perhaps in all of human psychology."
(Simon LeVay. Queer Science. (The MIT
Press: 1996) :166)
"Should one take these [innateness] assertions seriously? Not entirely, of course. No one even remembers being born, let alone being born gay or straight. When a gay man, for example, says he was born gay, he generally means that he felt different from other boys at the earliest age he can remember. Sometimes the difference involved sexual feelings, but more commonly it involved some kind of gender-nonconformist or 'sex-atypical' traits--disliking rough-and-tumble play, for example--that were not explicitly
sexual. These differences, which have been verified in a number of ways, suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by factors operating very early in life, but these factors could still consist of environmental forces such as parental treatment...."
(Simon LeVay, Queer Science,
(The MIT Press (1996)) :6)
I debated gay activists back when they were trying to change the Boy Scouts. It was pretty much a decimation. They are too simplistic, just self defining by their own feelings and so on.
But, this silliness is still around. In fact, I just read an editorial in the News Journal and so on. I think I will comment on it.
There was even a question about "born that way" in the Presidential debate. The debate is pretty much over, this is old. All "born this way" really is, is the traditional subpagan rebellion against being born again, against the notions of the noble pagan too.
"What can we conclude about the biology of homosexuality? Let us turn in more detail to the most comprehensive review article, cited previously, on the subject of the biology of homosexuality, including genetics. 'Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised' by Byne and Parsons was published in the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry as Bailey and Pillard’s study of female homosexuality, Lidz’s response to their first article, and their response to Lidz.
The article reviews 135 research studies, prior
reviews, academic summaries, books, and chapters
of books, in essence, the entire literature, of which
only a small portion is actual research. The abstract
summarizes their findings concisely and is by far
the best available assessment of the current status
of this research:
'Recent studies postulate biologic factors [genetic,
hormonal] as the primary basis for sexual orientation.
However, there is no evidence at present to
substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is
no evidence to support any singular psychosocial
explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate
biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic
explanations for sexual orientation may derive more
from dissatisfaction with the current status of
psychosocial explanations [which are based on this lil' thing called, evidence] than from a substantiating
body of experimental data. Critical review shows the
evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.
In an alternative model, temperamental and personality
traits interact with the familial and social milieu as
the individual’s sexuality emerges. Because such
traits may be heritable or developmentally influenced
by hormones, the model predicts an apparent non-zero
heritability for homosexuality without requiring that
either genes or hormones directly influence sexual
orientation per se.'"
(Bynes and Parsons. "Human Sexual Orientation" :228-39 cf. Homosexuality and American Public Life, Edited by
Chrisopher Wolfe,(Dallas: Spence Publishing Company)
1999, :57-58)
There is another pattern.
Example:
"...inside the charred King house, investigators found a note Alex had written saying he admired Chavis and
wanted to be just like him. "Before I met Rick I was straight but now I am gay," Alex wrote."
(The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN)
August 26, 2002 Monday Final Edition
NEWS; Pg. A4
HEADLINE: TWO JURIES TO DECIDE IF
CHILD MOLESTER, 2 BROTHERS OR
ALL 3 KILLED FLA. FATHER
BYLINE: Bill Kaczor The Associated Press)
"In most cases, homophile interests developed in the early to mid-teens . . .There was no history of overt heterosexual experience prior to homophile orientation.
Recruitment usually was accomplished by an older male, frequently in his twenties, but occasionally men in their thirties were the initiators. When the homosexual
commitment was terminated, in most instances, the relationship was broken by the elder partner. With termination, the teenager was left with the concept that whether or not he continued as an active homosexual, he would always be homophile-oriented."
(C. Masters and O. Johnson, Human
Sexual Inadequacy,
(Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1970), p. 180)
This pattern is also noted by anthropologists. It was an irony when dealing with people who were always saying, "The science of things, bigotry, ignorance, phobias, the science of things!"
To say, "Here is the science, retard." Anyone who has read some history can know that forms and patterns of sexuality are generally relative to culture.
But the Herd seems to be a bundle of conditioning. That's pretty much it for them.
Well thanks for that long essay on homosexuality. That is exactly what I would call a fancy word dance. Let me ask you some questions. You claim to have my thought patterns all figured out. Then tell me something about myself. I'll tell you if you are right or wrong. consider it an exercise for your amazing mind.
What do I value in life?
What do I think about truth?
Am I straight or Gay?
What makes me happy?
What am I searching for?
Well thanks for that long essay on homosexuality. That is exactly what I would call a fancy word dance. Let me ask you some questions. You claim to have my thought patterns all figured out. Then tell me something about myself. I'll tell you if you are right or wrong. consider it an exercise for your amazing mind.
What do I value in life?
What do I think about truth?
Am I straight or Gay?
What makes me happy?
What am I searching for?
Jerry
By the way, you are insane if you think that playing with dolls and not likeing football makes a boy end up gay.
There is nothing that complicated about simply taking a person at their words. No great brilliance is required.
"What do I value in life?"
Peace and loooove....
"What do I think about truth?"
As long as it comports with some sort of transcendent peace then you will accept it. If not, you reject it and start acting like a retard about it by asking retarded questions.
Peace is all you are looking for and what you accept as true prima facie.
"Am I straight or Gay?"
You've capitalized the word gay enough to indicate that you agree with some patently idiotic form of identity politics. That is retarded and destructive. I do not know that you would ever choose to take on that identity but you seem to feel that it is worth constructing.
How about a self defined gay, criticizing American Gay© culture and its constructions.
Adults only:
-----------------------
"The symmetry between the two fundamentalisms is stark, but it's broken by the fact that most Christians will say aloud that they don't agree with or support fundamentalists, something gays refuse to do about their own. A sadomasochist walking through the business district with his ass hanging out is an expression of "diversity"; an obnoxious prick who squeals and whines is just "being himself."
I'm a gay man and an atheist, but I'll take religion over gay culture."
-------------------------
What makes me happy?
What am I searching for?"
Peace that transcends understanding, which you may not understand, if you seek it.
"....you are insane if you think that playing with dolls and not likeing football makes a boy end up gay."
You seem to know essentially nothing about that psychosocial issue. Plus your effect is still not being "achieved with reference to facts, logic or proof."
You may not know this. But it is a predisposition. It is a fairly strong one too. So there is a strong association with effeminacy or intersexuality and homosexuality.
Yet in some cultures there are patterns of homosexuality in which effeminacy has nothing to do with it. As in some prison cultures, etc...
Just because some people are predisposed to alcoholism does not mean that all alcoholics had the predisposition. Get it? The only reason for noting effeminacy is to note where the claims of "born this way!" come from. That is their source, then propaganda is built up as if this simplisitic issue is the sole issue. It is not, sexuality is still relative to culture. What is funny is that people who try to say that morality is relative to culture often are those trying to argue that homosexuality somehow transcends culture. So then, mere sexuality should somehow come to define morality. It is a rather precise inversion.
Then there are the feminists who get even more silly and contradictory. They want to say that the sexes are not so different as a basic fact and pattern of biology. They are equal, equal! They are the same, not different. But they also want to say that "homosexuals" are not the same and instead are a different group as some supposed fact of biology. Now that is absurd and contradictory to the original anti-biology propaganda.
The sexes, the male and female, are the same/equal but "homosexuals" are different?
Homosexuality itself rests on the biological distinction of the sexes being said to be different types, "stereotype," sexism. They are going around claiming an immutable orientation to only one or the other sexual type. How sexist...
So are the sexes blurred together, or not? If they are "equal" as in the same, then why claim to be oriented just to one or the other? Is it not all the same? Are they not equal? Is it not the same as sexist and racist discrimination to go around claiming to be oriented only to one? Are they blurred together as "equals" or distinct types of being? Which is it?
Perverts just cannot seem to think straight about this sort of thing, instead they feel gay.
The sexes are complementary, different. They are equals in the oneness of a true marriage. They are not equals in the sense of being the same.
Those who exchange what is morally correct for what is politically correct start trying to act like they are. This begins to shape things like homosexuality.
The mutability of sexuality is a fact that might be hard to understand for those who lack perspective about historical patterns and the like. Certainly, it does not happen overnight or even within a single generation. Yet it is true, no less. There is plenty of evidence that sans the Word, culture and nation is all that shapes people.
And the American Churches are weak and weaker, dumb and dumber. Tolerance grows to be the highest virtue for those who are too ignorant or stupid to make up their minds. So they just call themselves tolerant and loving instead. Whatever such words are supposed to mean to those who do not know the truth and so the true meaning of them.
"Simon LeVay has been discredited, as his results are not repeatable."
Because the facts I cited him for are rather thoroughly proven.
As in, "Even a gay propagandist admits these things."
Jerry does not seem to admit some things though. Hmmm....you could just ask some honest questions Jerry. You don't have to go for some type of emotional conditioning by assiging and identity or feelings every time.
"Do you hate your family?" Feelings.
"Are you a fascist?" Identity.
"You'd have to be insane...." Identity....toying with making an actual claim based on viewpoints, though.
And so on. It has no impact, anyway. You have to lift your eyes up from an immanent focus.
Even a prostitute can be raped, I am not about credibility based on identity.
People can know his credibility or what not by the fact that he is a gay activist and by the title of his book. Here is another person, who notes some similar facts through a similar feminist filter of victimization and retardation.
"Gender Identity Disorder (GID) first appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III) in 1980 and supplanted the diagnosis of homosexuality to pathologize gender transgressions. A "strong and persistent cross-gender identification" and a "persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex" comprise two of the four main criteria for the diagnosis. The presence of GID in the current DSM-IV-TR as a mental disorder allows parents and the medical community to stigmatize gender non-conforming youth and to seek "treatment" in the hopes of preventing the onset of transexualism and homosexuality. GID is used more often against boys than girls; boys in gender identity clinics outnumber girls five to one."
(Boston College Third World Law Journal, Winter, 2001
21 B.C. Third World L.J. 123
BOOK REVIEW: Forcing Boys to Be Boys: The Persecution of Gender Non-Conforming Youth:
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming our Young Men. By Christina Hoff Sommers
SEC-NOTE-1: New York: Simon & Schuster. 2000. Pp. 251
Book review, by Patience W. Crozier)
These discussions about their boys is like a lil' debate about Wisdom among the ladies.
It is a fairly interesting one, I suppose. It is easy to decimate the radical feminist anti-masculinity perspective. She says, "The Persecution of Gender Non-Conforming Youth!"
I shall translate: Me Victim now!
Then after that point, it doesn't have to make much sense. They point to something that triggers some emotion and then argue that all of society must be deformed based on it.
But who is it that is being drugged up with ritalin as an actual general pattern to things? Boys, girls, effeminates? Shall the exception of the effeminate be used to make the general rules? Who is being medicalized the most? Who is being smothered and feminized in the State schools?
It is like a parable. Is the solution to a raging river to try to put a dam up to stop it totally? Or is it to divert its flow, channel it to irrigate some fields and provide energy? In one scenario the dam breaks and floods the whole place with a greater violence of raging waters than there was before. In the other, crops get watered, energy is provided, etc.
The feminists want to dam it all. So they tend to just fear-monger, as this one does. There is fodder for propaganda as they do. It increases.
There is propaganda about sports in the moooovies because the feminized man is the childish man, who is the brutish man. Then, more fear-mongering, but who actually set this pattern in motion? The feminists had something to do with it. They're the first to smother, the first to fear-monger, just as this one does again and again. They're the first to go to 1-2% of the population and argue, "All boys must be more like this. For the safety of it all!"
They are too myopic to see the associations of effeminacy with serial killing, child abuse and the like.
Movies dealing with sports like Remember the Titans are few but they deal with a noble pattern about boys and men. This pattern deals in words like integrity, duty and honor that the feminist know not. They deal only with words like love, tolerance and therapy.
Well, I said I would tell you if you were right or wrong, you were somewhere in between. I would try to get to know somebody a little better before assuming that I could psychoanalyze them if I were you, but that's just my feeeeeling. You did a good job of reading what I said and assuming that it applied to my whole life and that they were well thought out statements that I truly meant. Bu that's all you had to work with. So out of 10 stars you get 6. Not bad, cosidering I don't give many stars to anybody.
Jerry
About the whole gay thing, I capatalized that to see if that would make you assume that I am gay, and it worked. It was just an experement. I'm straight as an arrow.
"...make you assume that I am gay, and it worked. It was just an experement. I'm straight as an arrow."
That's good, because denying the beauty of women seems to lead to psychosis. In my opinion, that is at least a form of neurosis in itself, if not psychosis.
I did not assume that you were gay in the sense of anything based on your feelings. Being that it is mainly a self definition I just asked what you define the notion as and noted some things.
As to psychoanalysis....it can be a lot of excrement. But that is like anything, I suppose. It can be abused. Looking to the family and sexuality does seem to explain many of the basic patterns of Leftists and Rightists.
Taliban/Rightist, lost in a hyper-masculine transcendency, the Islamist boys in their Madrassas. Italian fascism...
Socialist/Leftist, lost in radical feminist immanence, previously the eugenics movement, socialist doctors, etc. German fascism, or Nazism is also of this, although the feminine/effeminate part of the Nazi pattern is hidden, of the occult, forgotten except in the history books and a few movies which accurately assume the pattern. Nazis publicly pretended to be more like Italian fascists, "Me manly man now." Although, there were widely known Nazi homosexuals.
Conservatism/Moderate, values a marriage of the patterns, Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers, etc. Americanism...so the Founding Fathers leave historians in an odd position of speaking of a conservative revolution and then questioning if there can be such a thing. For it is based on such basic things that are written right into people.
Evil can come in different forms and Italian fascists and Nazis wound up being allies in a war but that does not mean they liked each other.
Mussolini referred to Hitler as “that horrible sexual degenerate.”
(Seward, Desmond. Napoleon and Hitler: A Comparative Biography. New York, Viking, 1989 pp. 148)
And he was right. Yet he was Evil in his own way.
I guess I already said that I prefer Eminem/fascism to Manson/Nazism if one has to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Well, ask some questions if you want to because I do not mean to write in ways that anyone cannot understand.
In the back of my mind I know the simple fact that there are those who will not come to know some things, no matter what.
Post a Comment