I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[promethean75]

"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."

On the contrary, such arrangements are often entrenched in all manner of tumultuous conflict and fervent disagreement; observe

[promethean75]

(note the profound irony when Mike says 'if any boys wanted to play in a doll house, I'd take em to a psychiatrist'. Mike was a homosexual who died of AIDS)

(the only other irony I can think of that comes close to this one was when Christopher Reeves (the man of steel) was thrown from a horse and paralyzed from the neck down)

[Alexis Jacobi]

(At least he didn’t link to the Goodnight scene in The Sound of Music …

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

If you read this you’ll better understand Weaver’s view. It has different — wider — connotations than what you have suggested here.

but I have no idea what this would mean in terms of daily life and how society would be different?

If you were to imagine a person reading and assimilating the ideas that Weaver communicates, that person would likely seek to reground themselves within *structure* that seemed to have, or to be infused with, values & principles recognized as being ‘metaphysically sound’.

You know that Platonic idea about our condition within mutability. What is posited is the possibility of self-orientation toward and in ‘transcendent universals’.

So, I assume that those who come under the influence and are moved by those views, seek to define universal constants accessible within a larger necessary frame of mutability.

Thus the notion of anchoring and mooring come into play.

Good question: How would our society be different. If the individual is different, or anchored, then one supposes society will be so also.

Guénon seems like a kind of Western Hindu

He wrote a great deal on Vedic metaphysics. He used that conceptual system as an example of one infused with •sturdy metaphysical constants•.

[Iwannaplato]

If you read this you’ll better understand Weaver’s view. It has different — wider — connotations than what you have suggested here.

I actually found that link on my own when you mentioned Weaver. I didn't read it all. I'm on the lazy side when I do reading directly for specific topics here or get links from others. Anyway I found it interesting, but very abstact.

If you were to imagine a person reading and assimilating the ideas that Weaver communicates, that person would likely seek to reground themselves within *structure* that seemed to have, or to be infused with, values & principles recognized as being ‘metaphysically sound’.

You know that Platonic idea about our condition within mutability. What is posited is the possibility of self-orientation toward and in ‘transcendent universals’.

So, I assume that those who come under the influence and are moved by those views, seek to define universal constants accessible within a larger necessary frame of mutability.

To me this is very abstract and general. Can you explain what changes in day to day life such a person would strive for and I mean at a concrete level. What kind of society would they be pushing for - again at the concrete level.

Good question: How would our society be different. If the individual is different, or anchored, then one supposes society will be so also.

So, how?

Guénon seems like a kind of Western Hindu

He wrote a great deal on Vedic metaphysics. He used that conceptual system as an example of one infused with •sturdy metaphysical constants•.
[/quote]Let's say one takes on Vedic metaphysics. How do you see this changing the U.S. again at the concrete level for individuals and then in terms of society?

[Wizard22]

Actually no. If you like not having a king, it was not conservatives who wanted to break free from England and royalty (and that set of hierarchies, to take a term that AJ has been using. It was precisely NOT preserving the order that the radicals in the colonies wanted to do.

And the Catholic Church is founded on someone who radicalized Judaism: Jesus.
As one example amongst many he internalized the Commandments. Not just about behavior, your internal states must change - he also confirmed paying your taxes which may or may not cause problems for some conservatives, but that's a side note.

Every single thing about Western Civilization that separates it from other things was brought into being by radicals. The conservatives of the times would have and did hate these people.

Yesterday's Liberals are today's Conservatives.
What is the result of 'Revolutionizing' a society, except the new ruling party now has the same Moral Responsibility of the defeated? Liberals always have the advantage of Offense, not Defense. That's the difference between the mindset of 'having something to defend' versus 'nothing to lose'. Liberals have no assets, no attachments, no discipline or loyalty to Reality and Nature. Because if they/you did, have something to defend, then you would not be so willing to risk it all—and to gain, what exactly?

Homosexual, gay pride parades? Congratulations on your 'Victory'.

I'm pretty sure that none of the "Liberals" you mentioned in history were fighting for sexual perversion, though. Well, in any case, not as you spell it out. Rather, those who impose sexual immorality upon others, other societies, do so for the purposes of demoralization and subterfuge, an Attack. It is a means to destroy one's enemies.

What kind of parent wants their biological son or daughter to be a Queer, when he or she grows up?

What kind of parent would not defend their children against such sickness and perversion?

What kind of parent actively participates in "transitioning" their 5 or 6 or 7-year-old child?

Oh, that's right...those on the Liberal-Left. You essentially practice Ritual Human Sacrifice, only 'postmodern-ized', made contemporary and Avant Garde. Abortion, circumcision, castration, genital mutilation, child sacrifice, human sacrifice, these are all symptoms and indications of the "Liberal-Left". Your mistake is in thinking this is your "Progress" or your progressive ideology. It's not. It's deeply regressive, more so than any Conservative-Right can fathom. The Conservative-Right always stands for Heterosexual, normal family and biological kinship.

Because if you do not own your own Flesh, then you own Nothing at all! In fact, you are a Slave, just under Postmodern, upgraded terms, words, references. If you call it "LGBTQ" then genital mutilation is now, morally acceptable (to you, Hairball, Dpants, Scalp, Etc). If you call it "asylum seeking" then illegal immigration and Serfdom is now, morally acceptable (to you again).

Western Civilization is a very complicated beast and it has done things that are terrible and some very confused notions

I used to think so...until I got myself a Cipher.

Now I see that today is the same as 0024 AD, two thousand years ago.

Only the words change, not the concepts, not the references. Child sacrifice, practiced today, Abortion. Genital mutilation, Self Flagellation, Human Sacrifice, all practiced by the "progressive" Liberal-Left. Only disguised, New costume, Dressed up, 'Modernized'. You just rename it, and boom, it's Baptized, Cleansed, ready to be reasserted back into society.

and
it in turn
overturned (transvalued) previously held values and was happy to kill people who did not believe what the church or governments in that civilization though they should THINK.

Should pedophiles not be killed?
Should those who hunt you, who want you killed, not be killed?
It would be nice if Humanity would not murder one another or go to war...but what is the Reality?

The reality is, we are born to Nations, into Wars we did not "Choose", into tribal lines, genetic lines.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to fight. Because others will walk over you regardless.
Others will choose for you—bring the fight to you, eventually.

The Catholic Church not only demanded certain behaviors, but even reading, thinking about, saying all sorts of things could lead to torture and death.

Liberals needed to come in and break the conservativism around that.

Even you Wizard while respecting many of the values of the Catholic Church don't believe in Catholic metaphysics and if you spoke about that you would have had serious problems. But you can because people decided to change parts of Western Civilization because they felt you should be able to think and speak as you like


It's not binary. Accept the whole thing or you are a parasite.

Well, guess what, that makes you a parasite also. A parasite on many people who were not conservatives.

I see that History repeats.
Why was the Catholic Church made?
Who made it?

When sexual debauchery, "trans movements", LGBTQMAP+, Queerdom, ran rampant in the Roman Empire, Conservatives needed a retreat, a place of Salvation and Safety, where they could take refuge from these evil, satanic forces. I see that need rising rapidly in America. God is needed, once again, to protect Marriage, Family, Kin.

Because the State will not. The State will confiscate your children, if you let the corruption continue. And then the slavery will not be hidden behind words, but actual and apparent.

[Iwannaplato]

Yesterday's Liberals are today's Conservatives.

or yesterday's radicals. In any case not conservatives. People who did not want to (just) conserve. Or course, these are not discrete categories. You could be radical about democracy vs. monarchy and reactionary about sex roles. But yes, a lot of what we take for granted as part of what conservatives love was set in place by non-conservatives, often radically so.
'

What is the result of 'Revolutionizing' a society, except the new ruling party now has the same Moral Responsibility of the defeated?

Well, presumable King's Men and Patriot's both would be responsible after the war, since both groups could now participate in the budding republic.

Liberals always have the advantage of Offense, not Defense. That's the difference between the mindset of 'having something to defend' versus 'nothing to lose'. Liberals have no assets, no attachments, no discipline or loyalty to Reality and Nature.

That's ridiculous. Liberals don't want to change everything. They want to conserve all sorts of things that have been in place a long time. All sorts of things from the constitution and from the three branschs of government to most of the features of capitalism.

Because if they/you did, have something to defend, then you would not be so willing to risk it all—and to gain, what exactly?

Tell that to the founding fathers, then.

Homosexual, gay pride parades? Congratulations on your 'Victory'.

Avoiding the issue. The King's men wanted to conserve colonial status and the power of the monarchy to control the people who became Americans.

I'm pretty sure that none of the "Liberals" you mentioned in history were fighting for sexual perversion, though.

Again, I get it you disagree with Liberals and the Left on this issue. But that's not ALL you guys are asserting. You've been saying that people are parasites on Western civilization when they want to change things. You've made a categorical accusation.

It doesn't hold. It shows an ignorance of time and history and the fact that traditions you want to hold were created by people who wanted to change things and stop certain traditional practices or start new ones.

Well, in any case, not as you spell it out. Rather, those who impose sexual immorality upon others, other societies, do so for the purposes of demoralization and subterfuge, an Attack. It is a means to destroy one's enemies.

Like the Catholic Church did.

Western Civilization is a very complicated beast and it has done things that are terrible and some very confused notions

I used to think so...until I got myself a Cipher.

Now I see that today is the same as 0024 AD, two thousand years ago.

Only the words change, not the concepts, not the references. Child sacrifice, practiced today, Abortion. Genital mutilation, Self Flagellation, Human Sacrifice, all practiced by the "progressive" Liberal-Left. Only disguised, New costume, Dressed up, 'Modernized'. You just rename it, and boom, it's Baptized, Cleansed, ready to be reasserted back into society.

The Inquisition which certainly would have looked at you. Royal control of other other classes. Wiping out internal belief minorities. Lack of freedom of speech. Lack of class mobility. Permission for nobles to rape. Permission to rape members of other cultures and destroy their cultures and take their children away from them permanently and ban their languages. Putting to death people who wanted to have arms who were not royals or in their pay. Putting to death people who wanted a right to vote. Putitng to death people who dared to question royal behavior or Church father behavior. Lack of due process in court. Deadly child labor. Dragooning of military personel to serve royal interests as a rule. Nobless oblige. and so on.

And you're not responding to the points I made.

and
it in turn
overturned (transvalued) previously held values and was happy to kill people who did not believe what the church or governments in that civilization though they should THINK.

Should pedophiles not be killed?

You think Catholic priests onlhy started raping children in the 20th century. If you had dared talk about this or complain about priest and papal behavior, you were taking your life in your hands and that of your family.

And you're not responding to the points I made. Nothing I have said about your
CATEGORICAL complaint indiceates any approval of pedophilia.

This was a disingenous response. You just start making up positions.

You didn't respond to the main points in my previous post.

[FlashDangerpants]

those who impose sexual immorality upon others, other societies, do so for the purposes of demoralization and subterfuge, an Attack. It is a means to destroy one's enemies.

That seems like a crazy conspiracy theory. Nobody imposes sexual immorality on others. Sometimes they make you behave with civility towards people whose sexual preferences and lifestyles don't comform to yours. That's not imposing immorality, it's imposing basic decency.

[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.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To me this is very abstract and general. Can you explain what changes in day to day life such a person would strive for and I mean at a concrete level. What kind of society would they be pushing for - again at the concrete level.

My impression is that you are concerned about and more interested in economic and structural issues pertaining to the transfer of wealth to elite groups (if I understood you previously).

I think that you will likely go on to ask clarifying question after clarifying question about “how will genuine change occur?” of the sort that seems truly relevant to you. But no answer I will give will satisfy you.

My suggestion? Take 10 minutes to read that informative article. It will explain how Weaver’s ideas influenced (American) conservatism. I reread it in about that time.

If I were to make statements about how his ideas changed me — how I live, the choices I make, where I retract energy and where I direct it, my answers would satisfy me but likely hold no meaning for you.

How about this: refrain from asking questions and muse on the ideas presented so far. Is there nothing that strikes you? What about Weaver’s critical position vis-a-vis The Great Stereopticon? What about the idea of regrounding in metaphysically defined principles?

My general view, regarding the larger picture (mass economic and global events) is that we are all carried along and not in “good” ways. In that condition we all •seek anchors•. Do you agree? In what way do you seek anchors? Does the reference mean anything to you?

I'm on the lazy side when I do reading directly for specific topics here or get links from others.

You will be able to understand that writing in depth will take an hour, even more, and may not help you to understand my own value-choices which, likely, do not make sense to you anyway.

So please read up on your own and I think your questions will be answered.

As to the larger question of Traditionalism and Metaphysics (Guénon, Evola) I’m still here and will likely have more things to say.

I take it you never read The Crisis of the Modern World? It is an interesting essay. But you would label it •abstract• and thus non-useful to you (?)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Rather, those who impose sexual immorality upon others, other societies, do so for the purposes of demoralization and subterfuge, an Attack. It is a means to destroy one's enemies.

Again, Wizard is working within the area of a coherent principle: sexuality can be, and I think is, a tool used to undermine and pervert the individual. (I am not singling you, Flash, out for blame, but your sickness can be discussed dispassionately).

However, to see that, to believe the principle involved, requires an intellectual perspective. It requires the adoption of, the belief in, some physical-physiological and also metaphysical principles about sexuality and it use.

E. Michael Jones, a controversial Catholic philosopher/polemicist, employs the term Libido Dominandi: the use if sexual liberation in a social control project.

His ideas are interesting, and again based in coherent principles that arose from the Classical philosophy/Christian tradition.

Useful for the analysis of modern culture and general sexual attitudes.

[FlashDangerpants]

However, to see that, to believe the principle involved, requires an intellectual perspective. It requires the adoption of, the belief in, some physical-physiological and also metaphysical principles about sexuality and it use.

So in order to believe the propaganda, one must first subscribe to the worldview of the propagandist. You can in other words persuade people that perversion can be inflicted as some form of damage only if they already believe that things like perversion are damage that can be inflicted.

Perhaps a proper philosophical argument with persuasive force would be less circular.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But yes, a lot of what we take for granted as part of what conservatives love was set in place by non-conservatives, often radically so.

If that is true these “conservatives” only need to broaden their understanding yet not abandon or sacrifice the •principles• involved.

The quest is to struggle to define the principles.

In our Modernity a great deal stands in the way of that project. Because our postmodernism does not recognize universal principles (as Weaver attempts to point out).

The gentlepeople who write here, on the whole, are outcomes of postmodern philosophical perspectives that have been internalized into a weird operative metaphysics.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So in order to believe the propaganda, one must first subscribe to the worldview of the propagandist.

Said in another way, with less loaded and prejudiced terms, you’d be right: we become convinced of what is true and good through intellectual and other sorts of work. When we have a defined platform, we act in relation to our values, our belief and our understanding. The basis of education in values is right there. In that, we have to be trained to think. But that, in classical terms, is very different from being propagandized.

Good work!

[FlashDangerpants]

So in order to believe the propaganda, one must first subscribe to the worldview of the propagandist.

Said in another way, with less loaded and prejudiced terms, you’d be right: we become convinced of what is true and good through intellectual and other sorts of work. When have a defined platform, we act in relation to our values. The basis of education in values is right there.

Good work!

And you aren't working to show, demonstrate or prove (I fear Age's rule of threes gambit has infected, ensorcled, or corrupted me) that your particular conservative viewpiont is factually superior to others. So you are running a counter-programming propganda operation, right?