 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10th, 2006 03:31 am |
|
It has recently occurred to me that there is an on-going sick effort on the parts of some political zealots, to annex the sensitive aspect of life - the creative (poetry, music film-making and literature) dimension of life and somehow to lay exclusive claim to them, part-in -parcel.
I say, "Back the truck up!"
This delusional belief was again made clear to me when, while listening to a radio program about a great classical music composer, I heard the "expert/narrator" say that, "one of the obviously great things about this composer was that he always kept his political activism on the forefront of his life"! Huh? Since when did anyone consider the measure of a classical composer's greatness the degree to which he allowed politics to play a prominent role in his or her life?
I saw that it was another assumption of the far left to lay claim to any and every expression of creativity or sensitivity as theirs and theirs exclusively.
That's what used to tick me off about the sanctimonious posters at the Jung Page Forum with their endless posting (often in totality) of lyrics from rock songs to supposedly accent to emphasize some point they were tyring to make.
Let's get it straight, innocence is not for the far-left to define nor preserve nor to protect. IN fact, the far left seems to be intent on eradicating innocence in our age, as leftist "educators and program directors" insist on bombarding young people with homosexuality, promiscuity, rampant decadence even when contrary to the parent's desires.
It is one of the most sick things about the far left and one that I find, as a fairly accomplished musician/music lover myself, one of the most personally offensive.
I think that Lennon was correct. John, not Vladimir. He said that, "musicians just get in the way when they try to participate in the political sector". You may notice that John Lennon's protests were largely non-sectarian. He was anti-Viet Nam War, not anti-Republican/anti-Democrat. He did not attack any faction more than any other, he objected to acts, not factions, and in that I think he acted with infinitely more wisdom than the wannabe politicos which have emerged from the entertainment industry of late.
I can see exactly how innocence mutates into it's opposite in the twisted minds of human beings. But I'll save that for later.
Any examples or observations about how innocence has been degraded or mis-managed by the stewardship of the far left in the 21st century?
I've taken on the traitor Clooney ("tempted the cobra in his lair", to quote the eloquence of Corvus) and next I plan to eviscerate the stupid pig-headed foolishness of the traitorous Dixie Chicks, Moby, Kanye West, John Bon Jovi, Lips McGee (Mick Jagger), Dave "Just Dump It!" Matthews, Green Brain and other modern "recording artists" in some of their latest forays into assumptions of injured innocence confronting the mythical Big Bad Machine of "American Oppression". Whining, pampered retards!
If anything, the politically-inspired, bitter, often-demented scribblings of those lil' media hoes is another example of how leftist art enables emotional illness and delusions of moral superiority in their audiences that are nearly as destructive, deluded and pathogenic as the messages of gansta' rap/hip-hop performers.
Innocence does not rightfully belong to the political left anymore folks. And I will enjoy sharing with you my thoughts about exactly why, if you will.
Last edited on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 02:11 am by
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11th, 2006 02:08 am |
|
O.K. I'm willing to contribute the memory of one of the first "uh-oh!" moments with "sensitive" anti-war types from Hollywood in the 9-11 aftermath. Opportunist Richard Gere got up in front of thousands of grieving New Yorkers and somehow his Tibetan-enhanced supernatural powers of sensitivity failed to pick up on the prevailing sentiment in the crowd.
Gere got all up in the microphone and said some stupid, insensitive thing like," I know that everyone is feeling angry and hurt but after that, I know that we're going to get to a place (theatrical pause) where we just feel love and compassion and forgiveness(smiles pleadingly)..." And the crowd erupted with spontaneous shouts of shocked disagreement, and angry jeers. He had insulted them.
Gere stammered, "Well, I guess maybe we're not ready for that yet and that's O.K., " as if he were talking to an idiot or a lunatic. Nice recovery there, Rich! Compared to that humiliation, shoving a defenseless de-clawed rodent up his *** was a dignified act.
As if there is something in itself sacred about forgiveness. Hey Smart-Boy! News flash : sometimes people do not deserve to be forgiven. Any fool knows, "repentance before forgiveness". DUH!! A six-year-old Christian child would know that - but not erudite, urbane man-of-the-world Richard "Gerbil-A**" Gere.
I really am starting to think that what some see as the Character of Innocence, is just the plethora of superfluous aspects that a child-molester sees. But of the fire of innocence beneath the superficial surface, the unholy know not anything and less than nothing, for they know their own lies.
Last edited on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 06:52 pm by
|
Helgi
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Tue Apr 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 545 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11th, 2006 04:41 am |
|
I also recall an occasion where a campaigning senator perhaps(?) died and they turned his funeral into a campaign trail pitstop. Many political figures walked out and felt insulted not only for their own sake but for the sake of the family that lost a part of themselves.
Politics is the antithesis to the mobile aspect. Ideology is rooted in the word "ideal" and an ideal is something beyond what is and thus is an illusion. Illusions drive us away from our own grounded principles and blind our perceptions.
I noticed even when a band I like makes a song based on a political issue it dulls my view of the song. For instance one band I love made a pro-death penalty song that I agree 100% with but I feel I liked the song more before I realized it was an issue driven song.
And if you notice, comedians who fall pray to Hollywood activism just arn't funny anymore once they have to turn it into a political speech. They lose that spark of aliveness and creativity. As for Gere. He and the others from Soviet Hollywood Union are elitists who see the masses as cattle that don't know any better and must be trained to do away with their racist and biggotive sentiments and feelings and embrace rational as they and the rest of the Kabbalistic-Scientologist-Communist sects in hollywood have.
____________________
"We have a lady who is most high and mighty, high she is and holy, nobles love her for this. She is called Freo, well does she direct them, Freo, our lady, we give to her Friday." -From the poem 'Brut', by the 13C poet Layamon
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11th, 2006 05:34 pm |
|
That senator was the one from Minnesota who died in an airplane crash. Yes, it was a major turnoff and an insult to the Republicans present who were there to honor the dead.
Gere is "unreal", to use the term most commonly used in primal therapy. His take on the appropriate affect for the situation reflected someone cut off from feeling. Would he have said this if the victim had been a politically correct one, say, a black woman who had been viciously assaulted by a white man? No way.
Roy
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11th, 2006 06:05 pm |
|
Nice example Helgi! Thanks, old man!
Roy wrote:
Gere is "unreal", to use the term most commonly used in primal therapy. His take on the appropriate affect for the situation reflected someone cut off from feeling. Would he have said this if the victim had been a politically correct one, say, a black woman who had been viciously assaulted by a white man? No way.
Roy
Yes, the now infamous Paul Wellstone Memorial that turned ugly after the brother of Senator Wellstone used his platform to deliver an acerbic tirade against conservatives while he was supposed to be in the middle of a personal tribute to his brother. As if the only thing worth discussing and which utterly defined his brother's total value as a human being were his political activities/beliefs - no reason to discuss his life as a man !?! What an insult to his brother- as if he was a one-dimensional being who had no importance in the universe unless he was being political !?!
That is the dark innocence-corrupting effect of an a-priori stance of rationalism, where one imagines that each moment is created entirely anew as they, the all-powerful Definers of Reality declare what is and is not. This is the Emperor's new clothes exemplified.
The ill-mannered rationalists obeyed the impulse that true innocence has to speak the truth, but corrupted it into simply speaking the truth as only the anti-conservatives saw it - an entirely different thing. The fools ignored the unwritten rules of memorial services that nobody discusses beforehand but which everybody with any social sensibility acknowledges. It is traditionally a gathering to exclude all negativity of personal perspective temporarily (which is what imbues such events with dignity) and to bathe in the collective reassurance of that which is classic and lasting in good people of all political philosophies.
Devout rationalists, of which there are in my opinion far more on the political left than the right, are incapable of acknowledging the existence of common sensibilities - or if they do acknowledge them, say that they are not important, or if they are important, they should not be.
Common prevailing social sensibilities are an outgrowth of eons of social development. To casually discard them is characteristic of the hubris of the privileged class, which fails to develop a comprehensive understanding of the value of resources or of experience. To arch-rationalists, used to personally having unlimited resources and opportunities, all tradition save the nepotistic ones that gave them their undeserved power, is a form of over-emotional superstition and adherence to a primitive world view.
In fact it is entirely the opposite. The rationalist view, is as Roy mentioned, the impaired, diminished, deep-feeling devoid view. It includes only the superficial emotions and the superficial intellect, and excludes the instinctive or the moving body's knowledge (where lies profundity and the "plucking of the human heartstrings" of gifted orators like Ronald Reagan or JFK). An intuitive, "feeling for what is and is not correct verbal conduct in social settings."
Any church parishioner could have told Wellstone's nearly-hysterical brother that he was making a mistake. One did not need a degree from any university to understand the sensibilities involved. Yet, he and his rationalist brothers-in-arms were oblivious to them and committed one of the biggest political blunders in the history of politics as a direct result.
The Wellstone Memorial was a perfect example of how the impetus of innocence to "speak the Truth regardless" became a self-destructive orgy of selfish indulgence, under the management of extroverted, half-unconscious rationalists running amok with excessive emotion and grossly inappropriately-expressed, frustrated personal anger. They did exactly the opposite of what Sen. Wellstone would have wanted - they needlessly did damage to their cause by being ill-mannered. The results reverberated into the national election and showed that it severely damaged the aspirations of Democratic candidates everywhere, esepcailly in Minnesota, which defeated Wellstone's annointed replacement on the ballot, the Democratic solon Walter Mondale.
It was an innocent mistake.
Last edited on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 05:20 pm by
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 18th, 2006 06:16 pm |
|
This may be the most egregious example of "innocence becoming infamy".
Apparently a Quaker librarian is being accused of and investigated for "sexual harassment" by merely suggesting that freshmen read some conservative books as well as leftist ones.
The "harassment" derives out of suggesting one of the books whose "bias and prejudice" against gays and women is such that the women and gays on the faculty now feel "endangered" by the suggestion to read the book and that in itself is a form of sexual harassment! Aha!
What the frigging fuck is the matter here? Here the loons of the left have found a way to manufacture crimes out of whatever they want.
They are just as bad as any Stalinist, Red Guard, Nazi, hysterical Inquisitionalist has ever been.
Here is the column from TownHall.com:
So much for academic freedom
By Rebecca Hagelin
Apr 18, 2006
Scott Savage is a peaceful, devout Quaker who, like the Amish, avoids much of modern technology, and by all accounts is a gentleman in both his personal and professional life as a librarian in Mansfield, Ohio.
So, why has Scott been accused of sexual harassment at work, and why is his case lighting up the blogosphere?
You see, Scott works at Ohio State University's Mansfield campus, where he serves as head of Reference and Instructional Services at the university's Bromfield Library. Recently, the entire faculty voted – without a single dissenting vote – to investigate Scott for sexual harassment.
So what was his crime? Did Scott make sexually suggestive comments to a student? Did he grope a co-worker?
Nope. As a member of OSU Mansfield's "First Year Reading Experience Committee," Savage had the nerve to suggest four conservative books as required reading for the school's freshman class, namely: "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian, "The Professors" by David Horowitz, "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" by Bat Ye'or, and "It Takes a Family" by Sen. Rick Santorum.
Suggesting these four controversial best-sellers was painful enough for the ultra-liberal professors there, but one of the books – Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" – caused the faculty to blow its circuits.
In fact, three professors became so agitated and threatened by the mere suggestion of their students' exposure to "The Marketing of Evil" that they claimed they felt "unsafe" and "threatened" on the campus, because of Kupelian's book, which they called "hate literature" and "homophobic tripe."
For instance, Assistant Professor Norman Jones (who teaches a course in "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender literature") said: "The anti-gay book Scott Savage endorses falsely claims that 'the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia.' This is a factually untrue characterization of Dr. Kinsey and his work on every point. ... I am frankly embarrassed for you, Scott, that you would endorse this kind of homophobic tripe."
Excuse me, professor, but Judith Reisman, a Ph.D. researcher and world-renowned Kinsey expert, absolutely vaporizes your laughable defense of the mad pedophile sex scientist in her pioneering book "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences."
Then there's Associate Professor J.F. Buckley (author of such gems as "The Social Critic: The Rise of Queer Performance Within the Demise of Transcendentalism"), who wrote: "Rather than waste your time with the paucity of intellectual rigor that Kupelian brings to the table, I encourage you to visit his website, and see for yourself his unmitigated homophobia and xenophobia. In short, he is a pontificating, phobic, cultural atavism bemoaning the loss of an (Anglo) America that only existed on such shows as "The Lone Ranger." ... As a gay man I have long ago realized that the world is full of homophobic, hate-mongers who, of course, say that they are not. So I am not shocked, only deeply saddened – and THREATENED – that such mindless folks are on this great campus. I am ending now, with the hope that I have seriously challenged you Scott, and anyone who "thinks" as you purport to do. You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed."
Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund has, like the Lone Ranger, ridden to the rescue and is vigorously defending Scott Savage from this vicious and obviously kooky attack on him.
Saying this is one of the most absurd cases he has ever seen, ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French commented: "Universities are one of the most hostile places for Christians and conservatives in America. It's shameful that OSU would investigate a Christian librarian for simply recommending books that are at odds with the prevailing politics of the university."
You can read the ADF's 48-page "Cease and Desist" letter here, which contains all the professors' demented e-mail rantings about Savage and Kupelian.
For a university that prides itself on academic freedom and presenting diverse points of view to students from all walks of life, it smacks of hypocrisy to ban materials that challenge the liberal orthodoxy. "The Marketing of Evil" is regarded as one of the hottest, best researched, and most eye-opening books of the year covering numerous issues. Unable to attack the substance of the book, the professors have resorted to the most effective (and most childish) form of “acceptable” intimidation – name calling.
The author of “The Marketing of Evil”, David Kupelian, gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation last September on the insidious marketing techniques employed to rewrite history and truth. Kupelian’s book is a must-read for anyone interested in public policy, marketing, or the reason for the fall of American culture. He’s also one of the best public speakers I’ve had the privilege of hearing. His words and work are brilliant and eye-opening, and should be required reading for college students across the nation.
on the insidious marketing techniques employed to rewrite history and truth. Kupelian’s book is a must-read for anyone interested in public policy, marketing, or the reason for the fall of American culture. He’s also one of the best public speakers I’ve had the privilege of hearing. His words and work are brilliant and eye-opening, and should be required reading for college students across the nation.
As a matter of fact, “The Marketing of Evil” is one book every American needs to read. The OSU professors – frightened out of their wits just at the possibility that "The Marketing of Evil" could touch down on their campus – have made the case more eloquently than I ever could. Related column: Don’t be manipulated by the master marketers by Rebecca Hagelin.
Rebecca is the author of Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That's Gone Stark Raving Mad and a vice president at The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner.
Copyright © 2006 Rebecca Hagelin
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20th, 2006 04:06 pm |
|
That's a great example above, Roy.
Then you may lump the Dixie Chicks, Neil Young (most sadly of all), Alec Baldwin in the "poor me" sector of celebrities. These folks all have one thing in common- they see themselves as helpless victims.
SImpering self-pity, morbid ruminations and paranoid fantasies given voice is not "art," folks. The anti-war faction has become the new "Get-Ready Man" of James Thurber's universe. Shivering their fingers in our faces and everything.
They truly are the new Illiterari - they inherit all of their, "well-informed" opinions second, third or fourth-hand or from some otherswise equally-unstudied individual. Some of them will lose their minds before their hysterical mass-charge to the cliff-edge is completed.
Last edited on Thu Apr 20th, 2006 04:15 pm by
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3594 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 20th, 2006 11:53 pm |
|
| Decisively refuted by the facts of life, Leftists have been forced to retreat to the only two places where empirical reality seems to carry no weight: Hollywood and the humanities departments of liberal universities.
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16th, 2006 11:55 pm |
|
Unlike Neil Young , Kurt Vonnegut or a few other artists whose naive politics may be forgiven becauce of their body of work, I am not ready to forgive the Dixie C*nts.
And it looks as if the nations concert audiences and CW stations aren't either.
One record company executive said of the Dixie Chicks, "We in the Country Music industry were all hoping that the latest recording from them would put politics behind and just let the music speak. But against strong advice, they chose to put a strongly political single as the lead number for the release, predicting that it would become a hit. The single as we in the industry say, 'died a swift death,' on the charts. Concert ticket sales are off significantly in domestic markets".
There is an old saying in show biz- "whatever puts asses in the seats". Whatever that takes, the Trixie B*tches don't seem to have it anymore.
I heard one zealous fan ask, by way of justification of the B*tches venomous anti-American political spewings, "What good is the right to say what you believe if you don't exercise it "? That is the essential error! Having the ability to do something doesn't also mean that unless one uses it, it is not an important or valid entitlement.
To carry that logic further, a police revolver is, "useless" unless it is being fired, same for a fire hose, and perhaps, our nuclear arsenal. Posessing the capability of speech does not also mean that one should therefore never stop talking, even if one has nothing good or important to say. For what good is having a brain if one doesn't use it?
Distrubed Natalie Maines couldn't render a friendly, sincere smile to save her life. Or if she does manage it, it takes so much effort that it leaves her exhausted and seething with resentment afterwards. She seems to have many overt symptoms of clinical depression to me. Maybe bi-polar and off her meds. Something's not right there - between the ears, I mean.
I guess the Dixie Traitors in addition to being unwilling to be nice, are also not ready to make good music either. Selah.
Perhaps we'll move to Paris
And inflict our noxious stench
On the stinking French! - from "Not Ready to Make Any F-ing Sense" by the Dixie Traitors
Last edited on Sat Jun 17th, 2006 12:06 am by
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3594 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jun 17th, 2006 01:05 am |
|
Once a Country singer stops being like country folk they lose their base and fall down hard.
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Classic Woman
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10th, 2006 01:07 am |
|
That was good PG. I have been fighting to preserve my innocence for 20 years now. It is not easy, but I am doing it. For a female it requires getting tough -- which I never wanted to do. It was either lose my innocence or get tough. I got tough.
The liberal social culture rapes society of their innocence. I am so glad I have been fighting it. You won't see me acting like a two bit cheap HO.
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 4th, 2006 05:18 pm |
|
Author Michael Crichton weighs-in on one of my favorite topics. Some secular political entities have adopted all of the irrational aspects of fanatical doctrines that they swear that they hate so much. Hmmm. If the anti-theists hate biased, non-rational thinking so much, why is such thought currently such a fixture of the rhetoric and validation process of these folks with the environment issue? Have they have simply substituted one neurotic (unreal) approach with another?
Dr. Michael Crichton is certainly not a political conservative in any contemporary sense of the term. He is basically a loyal scientist/physician who has no vested interest in anything but objective information and (to the extent possible for human beings) pure logic. So possibly his opinion should actually carry some weight in the minds of those who are undecided about the "problem of global warming," etc.
He differs strongly with the newly-politicized, newly-degraded, "National Academy of Science" which has recently turned in their reputation as a bastion of objectivity and impartial scientific analysis, in favor of Chicken Little Suits issued by New Age Fear-monger, aspiring-demagogue algore, in order not to inform the world, but save it from the "Coming Apocalypse" like a bunch of tonic salesmen and self-appointed "Holy Prophets".
NOTE TO ALL SO-CALLED SCIENTISTS- DAMMIT! YOU REPORT! I DECIDE! SO, CAN THE "PERSONAL-OPINIONS-ABOUT-"GLOBAL WARMING"-DISGUISED-AS-FACT," B.S., you venal, political-ass-kissing, intellectually-bastardized, opportunistic, pseudo-scientific bozos!
I prefer to decide for myself the meaning of facts, thanks very much, YOUR MAJESTY! I'm sick-to-death of so-called "objective scientists" acting like New Age gurus, who expect their followers to simply swallow their personal unsubstantiated conclusions and opinions part-in-parcel with their so-called "academic credentials". Politically-aligned pseudo-scientists are being pushed by the Drive By Media, as "authorities" in the same way that priests of old were pushed upon people. These (more-educated-than-average) political pawns are being sold to the public as, "lofty authorities with special skills and knowledge that makes their views both unchallengeable by and unexplainable to ordinary mortals". Yeah, in their dreams!
I like the fact that unlike so many of the "Chicken Little Camp", Dr. Crichton actually substantiates his conclusions/assertions herein with logic and facts that do not have to be untangled from opinion, unlike the statements of the New Age Chicken Littles in the voluble world of pseudo-science, who make definitive statements about topics for which no scientifically conclusive or testable data exists.
Michael Crichton said:
"I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears. As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment.
 "I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why. I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people -- the best people, the most enlightened people -- do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious. Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
"Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday -- these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith." Something I have always said, by the way: You can't argue faith, by definition. Anyway...
"And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs. There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden [to the environmentalists]? And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process."
Last edited on Fri Aug 4th, 2006 05:28 pm by
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 4th, 2006 05:54 pm |
|
Well, that was certainly worth reading.
I do think we need to save energy, if for no other reason than to keep the economy sustainable.
His analysis of the "church of environmentalism" is completely correct. Needs to be added to Marxist Church of the fall of man began with private property. And the lib church and so on.
We don't have time to verify the reasons for the present warming of the Earth. The sun contributes at least a third, and the rest? From us?
Saving energy will save money, increase wealth, reduce poverty, reduce pollution, lessen our dependency on foreign oil, and....
Roy
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 7th, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207301,00.html
Pop music is of course, making young people sexually active too soon, according to researchers. Hmm. So the far-leftist excuse that today's sub-cultural music is simply "harmless" is another cheap rationalization that proves to be pure wishful thinking on the part of the protagonists of the Big Party philosophy of life. The liberals who call all discipline or austerity, whether internal or external "abuse".
One mustn't discriminate, you know. Not even between right and wrong, sane and insane, creative and destructive. No, according to the left, all clear moral judgements are inherently bad. Morality is simply bad. Being completely wild and undisciplined is simply called, "an alternative lifestyle".
This is a long-overdue example of how modern pop music, which used to be, 1) a source of innocuous entertainment for all ages (2) an outlet for artists with something good or important to say (3) a source of inspiration and culture by skilled, nuanced song-writers/poets... has been annexed and ruined as a legitimate art-form by the far-left's obsession with being the "FUN" party.
Today, instead of artists like Phil and Don Everly, or the Beatles singing pleasing, melodious lyrics about life, romantic love, longing and loss, we have a greasy, sneering, sub-human monster like Ludacris singing about how much richer than most people he is, how much he likes to degrade, exploit and abuse anyone who comes within his sphere of influence. Great. Thanks for that Ludi baby! I hope that you get hit by a bus with a Coca Cola add on the side.
It's truly pathetic how brutally the commercial media has raped the art-form best represented by the Beatles (popular music with some social commentary and inspirational wisdom) and made it a vehicle for nothing more than the filthy juggernaut of the all-is-permitted, ( anti-authority) Permissive Society. The far-left will emphatically poo-poo true wisdom, denigrate traditional morality and offer instead, nothing more than unlimited CONVENIENCE AND FUN instead.
Easy sex (promiscuity). Easy relationships (sleaziness as "easiness"). Easy morality (none). Endless, unbridled permission to party in whatever fashion one wants. All as a compensation prize form liberals who have nothing to offer their fellow men but kooky policy ideas and even kookier aspirations and plans for the future.
How easily the far left has forsaken the authentic God for the lesser, cheaper, amoral gods of Convenience and Fun.
And pop music, that used to heal and inspire to moral and compassionate acts, instead only seduces, jangles, provokes, and titillates. And offers validation to the attitude that says, "I owe the nation/society which produced me and Humanity nothing. It's the government's responsibility to make me happy"! In the view of today's pathetically misguided youth, being happy is an entitlement, not a pursuit, to the weaklings and moral retards of the far left.
We have become very much like the society of pre-war Germany, Europe and elsewhere in the so-called "civilized world". Each generation likes to think that they invented decadence, but in reality, they only take swipes at it with a local or regional twist.
The ultimate expression of the permissive society is perhaps the heroin addict. If it feels good do it, and screw everyone and everything else! Literally. It's no wonder that the far left is so ready to forgive Robert Kennedy Jr. being a heroin addict. He was simply playing out the liberal agenda that says everyone has a "right' to be happy every second of every day, and anyone who tells you different is trying to "deny you your rights!" No, Robert was only obeying his liberal programing when he became a junkie. All he was doing was collecting on his entitlement to enjoy Heaven on Earth, every second of every day. And of course, being unspeakably wealthy places no obligation on Kennedy to give anything back to society. As long as he got his fix, he was fine and Uncle Ted was not going to criticize his nephew "doing his own thing". Not a surprising attitude for a man like Ted Kennedy, who committed negligent homicide (drunken manslaughter) and got away with it because he was a filthy rich politician. Why didn't Ted step in as a father figure for Robert after his own father was killed? Oh, but then Robert Jr. would have become a drunken, horny alcoholic murderer just like Uncle Ted.
I wonder what the vicious ignoramuses at the Lifeboat would say about that study.They always maintain that the far-left is the domain of "caring" and "compassion" for young people. If so, would they then say that it's good that modern music(made almost exclusively by free-wheeling, decadent leftists these days) is actually inspiring young people to become sexually active before they are psychologically ready?
I'd almost like to hear what type of lame rationalization one of those miserable, sophomoric pseudo-Jungian egomaniacs at Lifeboat Forum would offer about this study. I'd really like to hear from any of the parents over at the Lifeboat, who feel like they want their children to become sexually active at an earlier age than they themselves did, and therefore have no problem with letting them listen to pop music that encourages that. 'Love to hear it, but know I won't. But all I can hear (or expect to) is the deafening silence as they struggle to ignore yet another painfully REAL elephant in the room the next time they defend pop/rap/hip-hop etc., as "merely harmless entertainment". The Lifeboaters are mostly deeply frightened, desolate, intellectual lightweights who have always refused to confront a really capable debater in a fair forum on substantive issues like these. Vicious, verbose, disafilliated, sophomoric cowards is what most of the Lifeboaters are IMO.
Where is Steve Allen when you need him? Too bad Jay Leno or David Letterman or Conan O'Brian are too chicken-sh*t to rock the boat of their wealthy liberal Masters at CBS/NBC to simply read the lyrics aloud to some of today's most popular songs (the way Mr. Allen used to when he hosted the Tonight Show), in order to reveal the outrageously repulsive, wicked, venal, vacuous, spiritually-bankrupt nature of 95% of modern music that comes out of the "sub culture" today.
Just try reading the lyrics to any of the top-selling pop songs today and you'll think that you are reading something written by a sex-criminal, a hopeless degenerate, or some other type of animal who wears clothing, who thinks that they have personally discovered decadence and are the Secular Prophets who will release the Satyr adn free all of us from our "hang-ups", just as Satanists Alistair Crowley and Anton LaVey expounded before they went insane, committed suicide and/or died of drug overdoses.
The permissive society has finally embraced Satanism, only they have chosen to rename it , "pop-culture". And it's no joke- especially to parents who want to protect and guide their children in living a safe, sane and serene life amid all of the chaos and madness.
Last edited on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 11:26 pm by
|
Classic Woman
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 7th, 2006 11:43 pm |
|
Thank you PG. I have been saying that since I was about 28 and grew up!! My daughter suffered alot from that "alternative" culture. So did I trying to straighten her butt out.
Did you hear Paris Hilton is going celebate? I think it is great, but who knows how long that will last. Some smooth talking drunk rich guy will finally get her again.
Having sex wtih a someone you don't love and committ to, well, as my ex said so clearly to me once before, "it is simply stealing"
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 7th, 2006 11:52 pm |
|
Yes, I heard that Paris Hilton said that she's going to abstain from sex and I believe her.
Unfortunately, she's using Slick Willie Clinton's definition of "sex"!   
Seriously, there is no such thing as "casual sex" except to the writers of the T.V. show "Friends" or some other such superfluous pop-culture nonsense. Looking back I realize that all of my experiences in life have been part of what has brought me to this moment, including the sexal ones. But I would not repeat many of them, since they were not ultimately a "harvest of joy" for either of the principles.
As you, I instinctively reject "bonking" or "booty-call" mentality. It doesn't work, unless one is shallow and desensitized to begin with - then it's fine. To me it's childish to pretend that an intimate act is a casual act - as informal or emotionally significant as shaking hands or slapping some friend affectionately between the shoulders blades.
It's been said by some of our wise members that too much is made of sex. I would certainly never advise anyone who has had sexual experiences to be ashamed of them or to feel that they are somehow flawed or "damaged goods" as a person as a result. An action may be wrong, while the person who committed the act may still be a morally decent human being simply trying to get along as best they can. All experiences, even those we might not willingly repeat, may be integrated into the tabula rasa of the Eternal Now that is each moment anew.
Last edited on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 12:04 am by
|
Classic Woman
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 9th, 2006 01:21 am |
|
I agree too much is made of "sex". It is getting shoved down our throats everytime we turn on the tv, radio, open a magazine or hear someone talk.
I have tried very hard to keep my innocence over the years and it is not easy. Even our children are losing their innocence at 8 or 9 years old these days. Everyone forgets their spirit, dignity, integrity and principals and this causes us to either harden ourselves to thwart the degeneration of our souls or give in and allow the decay of our souls.
I prefer the former as it is the lesser of two evils in my book.
|
*Phil*
Opinionated Interventionist
| Joined: | Thu Apr 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 3594 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10th, 2006 01:43 am |
|
| Inhibiting but not totally repressing carnal desires, instinct behavior in general, causes libido to channel and transform into higher forms. Western civilization is built from strict Christian morality and ethics. For our culture to go to free love and let libido regress to baisc desires will wreck everything good.
____________________
Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo!
Galactic Signature: Blue Self-Existing Monkey
|
Classic Woman
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10th, 2006 01:50 am |
|
*Phil* wrote: Inhibiting but not totally repressing carnal desires, instinct behavior in general, causes libido to channel and transform into higher forms. Western civilization is built from strict Christian morality and ethics. For our culture to go to free love and let libido regress to baisc desires will wreck everything good.
You put it into perfect words for me Phil. I thought I was the only one who understood that. I get laughed at when I say these things to my friends. By the way, I didn't read that anywhere, it has always beens mere instinct in me.
|
Psycho Gizmo
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17th, 2006 04:58 pm |
|
That is a principle of tantric sexuality, and of some of the related disciplines of GI Gurdjieff's methods of enlightenment. Yes, the far-left lays claim to being the dispensers of sexual titillation, ecstasy and fulfillment for the masses. But cannot imagine that there may be something irresponsible about abaondoning the long-held American traditions of moderation in the expressions of the "lusts of the flesh." They side with Satanist Alistair Crowley's view that all sexual repression or inhibition are "hang-ups", completely unecessary, and a matter of taste.
It is no small wonder that GI Gudjieff did not allow a self- acknowledged child-molester like Satanist Crowley, to be in the room for long with any of his or his disciples young children. Alter Gurdjieff dismissed Crowley as having, "lost his way" and being, "...worse than simply wrong," about his ideas about Creation and the appropriate role of magick in our Universe.
And now we have the killer of Jon Benet Ramsey (let's hope his confession is validated by the evidence) to examine as a great example of how arch-liberalism and permissive society have run amok and hijacked innocence.
This creature is a perfect example of how the liberal mindset advanced to it's natural extreme. His defense strategy is directly out of the Marxist/liberal play book. He is admitting to the act of killing Jon Benet. He is, instead of claiming that he didn't kill her, basing his defense upon the fact that he did not intend to kill her, he says. He wants the jury to focus not on the act of killing her, which is stipulated, but his intention at the time he killed her, which he believes can be rationalized in the minds of the jury, into something besides statory rape and murder. Yeah right.
He wants the jury to focus not on the act of homicide, but on the intention of the person who committed it.
No doubt, if sentenced to death, you'll see Mike Farrell and his kook entourage out there defending him. If there is one thing the left cannot resist, it's coming to the defence of an unrepentant murderer or child-molester.
Yeah , Karr didn't really mean to hurt or harm her while he was raping her. He loved her, he says. And he especially loved the way she screamed in agony and horror as she was being tortured to death. He loved her, you know, like a wife or sister. Right. This deluisional kooky thinking is similar to the Avila creature who raped, tortured and buried alive seven-your-old angel Samantha Runnion. Karr is setting himself up to subtly try to "blame the victim" in some sick way. And just like Avila tried to blame Samantha Runnion's murder partially on her father by saying that her father molested her and made her a "horny little b*tch" or some such unspeakably horrible fantasy from the depths of what used to be a human mind, Karr is about to blame Jon Benet and her parents.
That remark avila made about Samantha's father will no doubt cost him another ten-thousand years in the Pit with his own kind, and another ten thousand years, and another after that.
Look into the eyes of that creature and you can clearly see the liberal nightmare in it's most tangible form. That fellow is the embodiment of the liberal permissive society gone insane. He is, "doing his thing" as he is protected by NAMBLA and the ACLU, who come to the aid of convicted child murderer's "rights", and will support this insect's "right" to the child porn he has, for personal gratification, he's an atheist (surely), and a person who can rationalize anything, even child rape/murder (he 's pleading not guilty).
See, Karr is sooo gentle and sweet and passively feminine (he wouldn't hurt a fly, you see) a perfect Modern Liberal man. And he certainly doesn't seem to have any really seriously repulsive anti-social qualities, like believing in God or being in favor of the War in Iraq, or supporting George Bush's policies on fighting terrorism. Nah, he looks like a great guy to me. Why don't they just let him go?
With any luck, he'll try that defense approach with the same result - a last meal and a bag of juice in each arm to wash it down. Look that thing in the eyes and say that death-by-torture is not a just punishment for a convicted child-torture-murderer like him. If that is not a crime which merits a punishment as cruel and unusual as can be devised, then I don't know what crime ever will...
If it were up to me, he'd take months or years to die, and beg for it before the end. If I had caught him, he would have wished that he gotten caught by the parents, that's how badly I'd have tortured him. Just to help him avoid Eternal Damnation by paying back some of his debt to the Universe for his offenses against the Spirit of Creation and for torturing a Holy Angel to death, like he was simply snuffing out a candle.
Perhaps he will meet some "friends" in prison.
Just look at that bastard. His expression says, "Poor sensitive girlish little ol' me. I'm such a victim. Don't you feel sorry for me with my pretty little face? I'm just sooo cute with my wide-eyed innocence act. Pooooooor little meeee....
"Bring me the irons, and the tongs journeyman, and make the chains fast." Master Palaemon, Seeker of the Order for Truth and Penitence, circa 40,000 A.D.
That calmly-defiant stare that I have come to recognise as the utterly insane look of a homicidal psychopath. The Creature Avila had that same dead calm look. SO did O.J. Simpson. No doubt, that was a similar expression (that emotionless, demure, poisonous calm self assuredness) that poor Jon Benet saw as she was dying from his sex-torture. That sad, self-pitying expression of flaccid acceptance of what he is and what he does to other human beings for the same reason a dog licks it's own *****, as if he has no control over it, but is simply submitting to an act of natural law. "Hey, she was askin' for it man...! The little b*tch was beggin' for it....! C'mon, look at her..."- The Karr CreatureAttachment: karr child rapist-murderer.jpg (Downloaded 10 times) Last edited on Thu Aug 17th, 2006 07:14 pm by
|
Current time is 02:58 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
|
