I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Wizard22]

Not a single example have you found. Meanwhile..... When are you going to tell us about the abuse you suffered as a child.??

Which you turn a blind-eye to, because you're Evil.

You poor thing.
Have you heard of projection?

Learn how to read, dipshit.

Your LGBTQ+ buddies are a bunch of child molestors and rapists. Birds of a feather though.

[Gary Childress]

Your LGBTQ+ buddies are a bunch of child molestors and rapists. Birds of a feather though.

Are you sure you're not talking about Catholic priests here?

[Sculptor]

Not a single example have you found. Meanwhile..... When are you going to tell us about the abuse you suffered as a child.??

Which you turn a blind-eye to, because you're Evil.

You poor thing.
Have you heard of projection?

Learn how to read, dipshit.

Your LGBTQ+ buddies are a bunch of child molestors and rapists. Birds of a feather though.

Nope. LGBTQ people rank the lowest on abuse stats.

[Wizard22]

Are you sure you're not talking about Catholic priests here?

YOUR pedophiles are worse than OUR pedophiles!!!

Brilliant reasoning Gary... but wrong. I can reject both sides of pedophiles and maintain allegiance to Conservative-Right moral values.

So why can't you?

[Wizard22]

Nope. LGBTQ people rank the lowest on abuse stats.

It doesn't matter how "low stat" they are (they're actually the highest stat), you'll still be there in the end, defending your pedophilic heroes.

Meanwhile, the rest of Humanity doesn't want their daughters being raped in a girl's bathroom by these freaks of nature.

[Sculptor]

Nope. LGBTQ people rank the lowest on abuse stats.

It doesn't matter how "low stat" they are (they're actually the highest stat), you'll still be there in the end, defending your pedophilic heroes.

Meanwhile, the rest of Humanity doesn't want their daughters being raped in a girl's bathroom by these freaks of nature.

You are a sad fuck.
What are you so scared of?

[Gary Childress]

So why can't you?

Because I am no one else's judge. I'm just an imperfect human being who knows he's imperfect.

[Wizard22]

https://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

[Gary Childress]

https://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

I'm not suggesting pedophilia is anything else but a bad thing. You seem to have the idea that you're the only one who "truly" dislikes pedophilia or something.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Myself, I concluded that the actual issue is not so much gay activities, but rather the breakdown of formerly defined rules regulating sexual conduct. Obviously, sexual expression was freed from all former restraints. This gathered steam in the 1960s but has had flowering at other junctures, too. Note that the Weimar Republic and the extreme liberalism on all fronts (quite literally all those now resurfacing with a vengeance) was one such juncture. Was it ultra-decadence and thus condemnable, or “the advance of human freedom”?

It requires a Platonic mind to define sexuality as requiring social restrictions, limits and controls. But to enforce such rules there has to be some defined philosophical ground one operates from. Once one — or a people — have become unmoored from a restraining philosophy (defined principles) then to all appearances sexuality careens off into unrestrained territory. One example is world-wide access and obsession with pornography. It is like a social/psychological wildfire.

I concluded that in a “sane” society (that is a loaded term!) deviant sexual expression would be — must be — repressed. But again to repress such behavior requires a philosophical position (like Platonism). If that no longer exists then, yes, the restraints will be lifted and there will be no sound, agreed-upon strictures to rein it in.

Here (on this forum) most who write are •children of ultra-modernity• and advocates of unrestrained •hyper-liberalism•. To propose or to philosophically define restraint (again in the Platonic sense) is to them to define Nazism.

So in my view the root, the real root, is in the imperatives and attitude of •hyper-liberals• (such as Flash). They have, they exist in, they defend, a general philosophy in which all restraints are attacked as repressive. And that repression is equatable (in their rhetoric) to Nazism.

However all deeply restraining social conventions are, in that sense, militantly controlling and authoritarian. Platonic philosophy is indeed such a program. The social philosophy of The Republic was always equatable with rigid social conventions: structures of social control backed by Authority.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you forced to go to parades? give interpersonal congratulations?

The answer is actually “yes” but I’d have to explain. You know the term •transvaluation of values•, right? The deviant sexual forms, now so prevalent yet once repressed, were such transvaluations. What was wrong and bad was transvalued into what is good and acceptable. Social engineering of attitudes.

See After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Doubleday). A social scientist and an advertising man offer a program to, literally, transvalue anti-homosexual animus by vilifying it, making it seem backward, mean-spirited, etc.

To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this “a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style.''

This outline pointed out precisely what did occur in all our cultures: the reengineering of attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality — among other ‘deviancies’.

No, you are not forced to attend Gay Pride, the restructuring and transvaluation took place through a vast, and effective, social engineering project over decades.

[Iwannaplato]

The answer is actually “yes” but I’d have to explain. You know the term •transvaluation of values•, right? The deviant sexual forms, now so prevalent yet once repressed, were such transvaluations. What was wrong and bad was transvalued into what is good and acceptable. Social engineering of attitudes.

Deviant used to include oral sex (at least where the monotheisms had a strong hold), premarital sex, adults having sex outside of marriage. So, how do we decide what is social engineering or the removal of social engineering? How do we decide which authority gets to engineer values? When is it no longer being engineered or getting deprogrammed (in the deprogrammed from cult sense of the word) and when is it being socially engineered?

See After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Doubleday). A social scientist and an advertising man offer a program to, literally, transvalue anti-homosexual animus by vilifying it, making it seem backward, mean-spirited, etc.

See, the Bible, the Koran, propaganda of all kinds about growing your hair long or cutting it short...etc. freedom of class movement, freedom of movement at all (at least in lower and peasant classes), freedom of association, freedom of self decoration, freedom of worship, freedom of speech...We could see philosophers at various periods of time saying that there was social engineering going on and these freedoms to do certain things were being transvalued in a negative direction. And they could point to texts and speakers that were involved in what they would call social engineering (or heresy or antipatriotic or decadent or vulgar or whatever) and paint these as obviously evil.

So, is a given instance of social engineering actually a deconstruction of previous engineering?

Even questioning authority was considered bad for a long time. It's not like social engineering started in the 90s or 60s or A.D. in history.

Not that you said it did, but it often seems implicit when the current left PC seems to be considered the first and only PC, when there was a very powerful toxic PC in place before the new one, which also has many toxic facets at this point has taken over.

To overcome Americans' deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this “a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style.''

And think of the incredible efforts made by churches and states when dealing with pagan, pagan nations, aboriginal groups, outsiders, pockets of premonotheist values and trans-monotheist values of all kinds. Not just the one we, you, I think the monotheisms got right.

Somebody's always been programming humans and starting with kids.

If we are going to get into specifics the general field of not trusting humans and at all and once the monotheisms got in place the denigration of bodies, sex, women, the earth, the non-transcendent, even play and humor needs to be put on the table.

Or it's a skewed image.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How do we decide which authority gets to engineer values?

A few things necessary to clarify my own position. I have, and for many years now, studied original Catholicism. By that I mean pre-Vatican ll material. I made the choice to do this when I read in René Guénon (The Crisis of the Modern World) that, still, in old-school Catholicism, one could discern traces of the *old metaphysics* that Guénon considered to be valuable, original and also (as he might say) timeless.

Suffice to say that one discovers in this original Catholicism a great deal that comes from the Hebrew sector, no doubt, but also and I personally think more fundamentally from Platonic philosophy. In a rather knotty paragraph in Beyond Good & Evil Nietzsche said that "Christianity is Platonism for the people".

We who seem to have transcended, grown sick of, become entirely bored with all imagery associated with Christianity, and thus seem to reject the metaphysical predicates it wraps itself in and defends, seem to *toss the baby out with the bathwater*. If we have *seen through* Christianity can we really also say that we have *seen through* all defensible value-systems?

I have been reviewing FM Cornford’s Before and After Socrates (1932). This part would comprise at least some part of my answer to the question you pose:

Socrates said that he knew nothing that could be taught to anyone else. At the same time he declared that human perfection lies in the knowledge of good and evil. Why cannot this knowledge be taught, like knowledge of other kinds? Because all that another person can teach me is that such and such things are believed to be good, such and such actions are believed to be right, by some external authority or by society itself. Information of this sort can be conveyed by instruction; indeed, it forms the whole substance of moral education as commonly practised. But it is not what Socrates called knowledge. I shall not know that this or that is good or right until I can see it directly for myself; and, as soon as I can see it for myself, that knowledge will put out of court what I am told that other people believe or think they believe. Knowledge of values, in fact, is a matter of direct insight, like seeing that the sky is blue, the grass green. It does not consist of pieces of information that can be handed from one mind to another. In the last resort, every individual must see and judge for himself what it is good for him to do. The individual, if he is to be a complete man, must become morally autonomous, and take his own life into his own control.

This is a responsibilty that no individual can escape. He can indeed, once for all, accept some external authority, and thenceforward treat that authority as responsible for what it tells him to do. But he remains responsible for his original choice of an authority to be obeyed. Socrates held that the judge within each of us cannot depute his functions to another. A man perfect in self-knowledge can tell when his own vision of what is good is clear; he cannot see into another's mind and tell whether his vision is clear.

This view presupposes that every human soul possesses the necessary power of immediate insight or perception of good and evil. As with the bodily eye, the soul's vision may be clouded and dim, and it may be deceived by false appearances. Pleasure, for instance, is constantly mistaken for good when it is not really good. But when the eye of the soul does see straight and clearly, then there is no appeal from its decision. In the field of conduct, education (after the necessary tutelage of childhood) is not teaching; it is opening the eye of the soul, and clearing its vision from the distorting mists of prejudice, and from the conceit of knowledge which is really no more than second-hand opinion.

[Iwannaplato]

We who seem to have transcended, grown sick of, become entirely bored with all imagery associated with Christianity, and thus seem to reject the metaphysical predicates it wraps itself in and defends, seem to *toss the baby out with the bathwater*. If we have *seen through* Christianity can we really also say that we have *seen through* all defensible value-systems?

So far, my main point is the rejection of the model that social engineering arose just to transvalue values coming out of time into the 20th century. That we can't just say hey that stuff was right and, implicitly, somehow natural and naturally arrived at. Then the social reformers (perhaps, The Left) came in with all their manipulation and mind control to tear that down.

Instead I see a long history of social engineering, which produced a long series of political correctnesses going back into the recesses of time.

Criticisms based on the model I say we can't just use, above, seem extremely incomplete and propagandized. Mythological in the pejorative sense.

I'm not, yet, advocating any particular position, nor am I suggesting we entirely throw out anything. I'm first looking at process, because the main part of your response to my post from last Spring was a story of process. And that description seemed very incomplete and misleading to me.

I have been reviewing FM Cornford’s Before and After Socrates (1932). This part would comprise at least some part of my answer to the question you pose:

Socrates said that he knew nothing that could be taught to anyone else. At the same time he declared that human perfection lies in the knowledge of good and evil. Why cannot this knowledge be taught, like knowledge of other kinds? Because all that another person can teach me is that such and such things are believed to be good, such and such actions are believed to be right, by some external authority or by society itself. Information of this sort can be conveyed by instruction; indeed, it forms the whole substance of moral education as commonly practised. But it is not what Socrates called knowledge. I shall not know that this or that is good or right until I can see it directly for myself; and, as soon as I can see it for myself, that knowledge will put out of court what I am told that other people believe or think they believe. Knowledge of values, in fact, is a matter of direct insight, like seeing that the sky is blue, the grass green. It does not consist of pieces of information that can be handed from one mind to another. In the last resort, every individual must see and judge for himself what it is good for him to do. The individual, if he is to be a complete man, must become morally autonomous, and take his own life into his own control.

This is a responsibilty that no individual can escape. He can indeed, once for all, accept some external authority, and thenceforward treat that authority as responsible for what it tells him to do. But he remains responsible for his original choice of an authority to be obeyed. Socrates held that the judge within each of us cannot depute his functions to another. A man perfect in self-knowledge can tell when his own vision of what is good is clear; he cannot see into another's mind and tell whether his vision is clear.

This view presupposes that every human soul possesses the necessary power of immediate insight or perception of good and evil. As with the bodily eye, the soul's vision may be clouded and dim, and it may be deceived by false appearances. Pleasure, for instance, is constantly mistaken for good when it is not really good. But when the eye of the soul does see straight and clearly, then there is no appeal from its decision. In the field of conduct, education (after the necessary tutelage of childhood) is not teaching; it is opening the eye of the soul, and clearing its vision from the distorting mists of prejudice, and from the conceit of knowledge which is really no more than second-hand opinion.

So, how do we apply this to the issue of gay parades?
If we go back to the OP...
I am tired of all kinds of parades. Consumer parades, Guilt parades - take this literally and then also metaphorically. Entertainment parades with all their various subtexts - some conservative, some liberal, a few outliers outside the usual suspects for subtexts. National parades, Globalist parades. Celebrity Parades. Pharmaceutical parades, Tech parades. Those last ones with nanotech, and chips for brains, and gm products and AI, those are the parades with all their transvalued values implicit and explicit worry me the most.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So far, my main point is the rejection of the model that social engineering arose just to transvalue values coming out of time into the 20th century. That we can't just say hey that stuff was right and, implicitly, somehow natural and naturally arrived at. Then the social reformers (perhaps, The Left) came in with all their manipulation and mind control to tear that down.

I can only give you my impression which, I must admit, mirrors a general view, proper to the critical or dissident right, that the major force behind the reengineering projects of the last 100 years, have their origin in Marxian ideals, strategies, and operatives. I realize that this is an assertive, and also an interpretive statement that would need to be backed up. I also recognize that it is one of those opinions that circulate widely and freely which has a (potential) paranoid element.

I definitely agree with you that *social engineering* -- the definition of values, the teaching of those values, and the spread of those values through a wide range of means (literature, film, art, social discourse, newspapers, articles, books) -- occurs at all times. But when I refer to *the transvaluation of values* in respect to issues of sexuality over the last 100 years I am trying to zero-in on a specific thing and, at least, trying to get clear about what has brought it about.

The reason I made reference to Platonic philosophy is to indicate that there has to be some defined perception-system, some interpretive base, some defined philosophical platform where what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, is explained in coherent terms.

At the same time there must be a person who is capable of making that analysis, and someone interested in making the analysis, and also interested in applying the value-designations.

So, how do we apply this to the issue of gay parades?

The view and opinion that I will offer will definitely seem *reactionary*. It may not be very satisfying or resolving that I have no recommendation as to what to do about the myriad of people who feel justified in expressing their sexual values in the public sphere. My view, and I would say this in respect to a variety of different trends on-going in the US (my primary area of interest), is that when there are strong currents of decadence and rebellion, and when these are not directed by *intelligence* (in the deeper sense of the word intellectus), that the trends will not abate, they will instead increase, and people in a general sense lose their moorings.

Again I can only repeat what I believe is the real root of the issue. It is not so much that there are homosexuals in whatever percentage, but rather that in a general cultural sense, and due to a host of reasons, people have become unmoored from a belief in the need for, or the sound reasons for, a philosophy of restraint in respect to sexual expression. So, in regard to that I must define what I believe is really important and order things in an hierarchy. Certainly at other times and places I have said the same things but I can assert, and I can also defend the view that the primary social valuation should be, must be, and really can only be in establishing the male-female family unit as being of a far higher importance than, say, a homosexual union. They are not equal. They should not and they cannot be seen as being equal.

Once a society has undermined the family unit, and once the primary social value is no longer the family itself but all sorts of alternatives, that society undermines itself. And this is evident in every society that does not create enough children to sustain itself.