I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Alexis Jacobi]

A waste of time. Since I wrote extensively on the theme. But if it helps: *officially confirmed*.

[FlashDangerpants]

That refusal to allow anyone to describe or know what your position is tactic comes straight from the Immanuel Can evasion playbook.

[Harbal]

Are you, or are you not, promoting a set of values centred around the desirability of large families, and predicated on a preference for some benefit of that family structure to the society at large, which you deem to be of greater importance than the personal desires of any individual that might feel disinclined to the same set of values? You can't already be at the stage where you need to obfuscate this horribly.

Alexis was promoting values centred around the desirability of large families. and when I asked him, twice, how large his own family was, no answer was forthcoming. So, for the moment, we don't know how well he lives up to his own values. Unless, of course, it is enough to only read and write about values, rather than to put them into practice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That refusal to allow anyone to describe or know what your position is tactic comes straight from the Immanuel Can evasion playbook.

I am beginning to think you’ve gone tound the bend. My position — the ideas I have, the ideal — is just as I have explained it in these pages.

You are free to know my position and to describe my position simply by reading the posts I wrote.

That Immanuel Can oooooooooohhh God that guy irks me! You too apparently.

This is my last response to you until I see something worthy from you. Sorry, Old Bean.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis was promoting values centred around the desirability of large families. and when I asked him, twice, how large his own family was, no answer was forthcoming. So, for the moment, we don't know how well he lives up to his own values. Unless, of course, it is enough to only read and write about values, rather than to put them into practice.

Close. First, I proposed a suppression of homosexual display, a de-emphasis if you’d like, combined with a re-valuation of the family, preferably larger families — to strengthen national demographics and for social and cultural reasons as well. I explained this in detail in numerous posts.

The concept I proposed is based in a re-recognition and re-strengthening of *the family* generally. To realize the plan, the ideal, a fairly large shift of cultural attitude would be necessary, given the present trajectory.

The details of my own family are not relevant to the proposition. I stated numerous times that the proposition is an ideal one, not a popular one or one that is practicable or practiced widely.

In all of Europe (for example) the number of children born — if my sources are correct — barely arrives at replacement level. And some countries (Italy as I remember) are well below.

Connected with these idealistic admonitions are a set of value-assertions which reflect a more traditionalist outlook generally. My area of interest.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you, or are you not, promoting a set of values centred around the desirability of large families, and predicated on a preference for some benefit of that family structure to the society at large, which you deem to be of greater importance than the personal desires of any individual that might feel disinclined to the same set of values? You can't already be at the stage where you need to obfuscate this horribly.

Alexis was promoting values centred around the desirability of large families. and when I asked him, twice, how large his own family was, no answer was forthcoming. So, for the moment, we don't know how well he lives up to his own values. Unless, of course, it is enough to only read and write about values, rather than to put them into practice.

Good to know. And when mister Jacobi was proselytising on behalf of this big family ideal, I don't suppose he happened to say what is it that makes big families such an important objective did he? I've not personally seen any post in which he explains that, all I've seen is a couple where he takes it for granted that they are a Good of some sort. But he isn't that interesting, and I don't read his work quite as avidly as he seems to think, so perhaps he was clear and direct about that matter somewhere I didn't happen to notice?

[Alexis Jacobi]

In fact, I did — but not in detail. Large families, abundant children, a healthy social environment, and a focus on the family, and life in the family, is a “good” for numerous reasons. Compare it to the stark opposite — family breakdown, divisions in the family, lack of supportive social structure — to begin the understand the positives.

The “objective of the family” seems largely self-evident. It is the structure, the ground, of civilization. The better grounded the family, the healthier the community.

so perhaps he was clear and direct about that matter somewhere [and] I didn't happen to notice?

That’s pretty much it you addle-brained perv …

[FlashDangerpants]

In fact, I did — but not in detail. Large families, abundant children, a healthy social environment, and a focus on the family, and life in the family, is a “good” for numerous reasons. Compare it to the stark opposite — family breakdown, divisions in the family, lack of supportive social structure — to begin the understand the positives.

That argument is a mess. You just dragged in the notion of "a healthy social environment" from absolutely nowhere. Comparing to the "stark opposite" as if you are presenting a dichomoty, which of course you aren't is just lazy. It's too easy to counter this rubbish by just borrowing the pisspoor structure for any old random alternative:

Small families, few children, a healthy social environment, and a focus on raising one really well behaved son or daughter is a “good” for numerous reasons. Compare it to the stark opposite — overburdened mothers that can't remember their own kids' names and drunken absent fathers — to begin the understand the positives.

There's nothing happening with these arguments because they are equally badly structured.

The “objective of the family” seems largely self-evident. It is the structure, the ground, of civilization. The better grounded the family, the healthier the community.

Small families built on love are better than large families built on some perverse notion of duty and conformity. It's that unmentionable compulsion to conform that is the true weakness of your position.

[Wizard22]

Don't have time to retort right now, just dropped by for this:

[Harbal]

Alexis was promoting values centred around the desirability of large families. and when I asked him, twice, how large his own family was, no answer was forthcoming. So, for the moment, we don't know how well he lives up to his own values. Unless, of course, it is enough to only read and write about values, rather than to put them into practice.

First, I proposed a suppression of homosexual display, a de-emphasis if you’d like, combined with a re-valuation of the family,

But what is the connection? Do you think that heterosexuals are somehow going to be subverted by the sight of homosexual relationships? In my day, having a gay couple living next door wasn't a thing like it is now, but had it been, I don't see how it would have deterred me from wanting to start, and raise, a family.

preferably larger families — to strengthen national demographics and for social and cultural reasons as well. I explained this in detail in numerous posts.

You might have explained in previous posts why you think larger families are a good thing, but I'm afraid I don't see them as such. It's not like the world is short of human beings. To me, the idea of large families conjures up images of women being more firmly tied to the home, and men being more securely enslaved to their jobs. Perhaps that is a good thing for society, I don't know, but it doesn't sound much fun for the individual. Don't you think a balance is preferable? I don't really see the point of an optimally functioning society if the majority of its members are utterly miserable.

The details of my own family are not relevant to the proposition.

Perhaps not, but if you truly believe in your proposition, you might have thought it appropriate to set an example.

In all of Europe (for example) the number of children born — if my sources are correct — barely arrives at replacement level. And some countries (Italy as I remember) are well below.

In Britain, which is part of Europe, the property prices have reached an obscenely high level. That is the law of supply and demand in action; too many people, not enough housing.

Connected with these idealistic admonitions are a set of value-assertions which reflect a more traditionalist outlook generally. My area of interest.

Yes, things were better in the old days. I'm sure folks have been saying that for hundreds of years.

[Harbal]

Don't have time to retort right now,

Yes, I have no doubt there are other forums demanding your services as village idiot.

[Iwannaplato]

Connected with these idealistic admonitions are a set of value-assertions which reflect a more traditionalist outlook generally. My area of interest.

Whose traditions, and what traditions did those traditions usurp?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Connected with these idealistic admonitions are a set of value-assertions which reflect a more traditionalist outlook generally. My area of interest.

Whose traditions, and what traditions did those traditions usurp?

I may not have the time to respond to your last post (birding expedition). But I understand your point: innovation is inevitable. But innovation in accord with what principles? The question of principles thus is brought to the fore.

Two traditions I’ll mention because they seek to define metaphysical principles of an eternal order: the Platonism of Richard Weaver and the metaphysical principles — the notion of — that Guénon writes of in The Crisis of the Modern World.

In some sense they operate on a similar plane.

[Harbal]

I may not have the time to respond to your last post (birding expedition).

Shoot one for me.

[Iwannaplato]

I may not have the time to respond to your last post (birding expedition).

Yes, there was a longer post.

But I understand your point: innovation is inevitable.

There's that, but that's not quite my point. Most of the people you mentioned seemed to be framing it like you originally framed it. We had tradition and something came as was not longer traditional.

So, history looks like this.....
Traditions/Traditional Hierarchies/Values-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> The 60s (or some other fairly recent period.

The transition is not from a period with one set of values that itself overthrew traditions in an earlier period into a new period with different values. In this schema, it's a transition from a timeless traditional period to a time without values.

But innovation in accord with what principles? The question of principles thus is brought to the fore.

Of course we can discuss the priniciples. But I am focused right now on what I consider a skewed view of history and also using categories that are not applied in general, just on the recent shifts.

Two traditions I’ll mention because they seek to define metaphysical principles of an eternal order: the Platonism of Richard Weaver and the metaphysical principles — the notion of — that Guénon writes of in The Crisis of the Modern World.

I looked at Weaver's ideas and I can get them in the very very abstract, but I have no idea what this would mean in terms of daily life and how society would be different?


Guenons seems like a kind of Western Hindu, and I also could not get a clear sense what he would want society, but I am going on secondary sources.
I-m not a big fan of the traditions he was a fan of. But again, I really don't know how any of this plays out in practical terms.