Sex and the Religious-Left

[promethean75]

This one is the best I think. The video is excellent too. It should be the first on your YouTube videos.

https://youtu.be/pSDBu2VaKVw

[Wizard22]

Yeah I'm with Gary. Anybody can be an 'excellent gentlemen' if they have the money. Culture and nobility isn't determined by genetics or education - that's a myth - but by wallet size.

Any man who makes a hunerd dollars or more an hour is capable of being an excellent gentlemen. Financially able, i mean. Duddint mean he'll ever become more than a tasteless uncultured pleb. He may squander his financial power on superfluous things or have substantial debt, continue shopping at Walmart, voting republican and watching wrestling on TV. But the money is there. He just spends it wrongly on uncultured things that keep him heathen.

Alls I'm saying is it's the money that makes the circumstances possible for excellence and excellent gentlemen.

That's not true at all.

Nobility transcends Class. There are Noble souls who are poor, who are middle class, who are rich. Money makes little difference, if any. In fact, more wealth might make it harder for the Noble, because it extends his Duties and Responsibilities. A Noble soul is one which people and the masses gravitate around, for leadership, for purpose, for meaning.

[Wizard22]

By the way, the Religious-Left obviously gained a great notoriety and wealth by 'rebelling' against the Classical Music of the Religious-Right and Conservative-Right...but that only demonstrates how the Left are generally inferior at Music, compared to the great, traditional works of Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Etc.

The Conservative-Right still dominates the Arts, despite Iwan claiming otherwise, or that culture only 'shifts' Leftward.

Anderson Cooper, ha, how soon will he be forgotten to History? For true skill, power, movement, inspiration, only the Far-Right traditions have lasting power.


If you can't play the piano, then you can't really play music, sorry.

[Iwannaplato]

By the way, the Religious-Left obviously gained a great notoriety and wealth by 'rebelling' against the Classical Music of the Religious-Right and Conservative-Right...but that only demonstrates how the Left are generally inferior at Music, compared to the great, traditional works of Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Etc.

Beethovan while not political was NOT conservative, if anything he was Left. He hated class divisions and birth rights, supported the Enlightenment, which was not a conservative position at the time, it was breaking traditions.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_ ... beethoven/
And of course as a successful and interesting artist, he broke with traditional forms.

Mozart was conservative as far as politics, though not as an artist. But, a point you and AJ can't seem to manage to wrap your heads around Mozarts conservativism is not yours. Unless you guys like Kings, for example.

The whole conception of your claim is confused. You have people with complicated or simple relationships to competely different types of government. Is someone conservative if they support a King or a communist regime.

You cannot seem to grasp that what is conservative changes over time and context. Any many were outraged by their music at first until they became part of the canon. They all rebelled within their arts. Some supported governments you would hate, those how did. Others supported revolution.

And then the simple unjustified appropriation of them as Right wing. LOL.

Or blaming whatever music it is that you have on the Left - and there's a distaste for certain classes implicit in that.

And as if most conservatives actually like classical music. Wanna do a poll amonst trump supporters vs. Biden supporters to see which group likes classical music more. That's not going to turn out the way you like. Not that I give a shit about the results of such idiocy.

Or, not understanding that there are pop music forms that are loved by conservatives.

That post is just unjustified but also completely confused coopting.

My people invented all the good shit.

Lol.

[Wizard22]

Monarchy is far superior to Democracy, as is proved right now, when Nobody and Nothing is held accountable as to the ills and disease of Western Society.

While Western Civilization grows sicker and more depraved, eventually society and the peoples will be pushed "Far-Right" to balance the sinking ship.

However, it's likely too late. The American Republic has already faltered—Democrats are bringing in 10s of millions of illegal aliens, to bolster their voting-rolls, while they attempt to Jail and persecute their "democratic" rival. They/You are not "Pro-Democracy". The Far-Left doesn't actually believe in "Democracy". They merely want the illusion of Legitimacy of a fundamentally Illegitimate Government—because nobody with common sense can now ignore these degrees of cultural, social, and political corruption and rot.

People require greater institutions of Accountability.

[Harbal]

This one is the best I think. The video is excellent too. It should be the first on your YouTube videos.

https://youtu.be/pSDBu2VaKVw

Thanks for notching my views up to 123, Prom.

[Sculptor]

There are some on this Forum who would be well advised to STFU and use your brain to listen for once in your life..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fadSfCyQCjQ

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mozart was conservative as far as politics, though not as an artist. But, a point you and AJ can't seem to manage to wrap your heads around Mozarts conservativism is not yours. Unless you guys like Kings, for example.

The whole conception of your claim is confused. You have people with complicated or simple relationships to competely different types of government. Is someone conservative if they support a King or a communist regime.

You cannot seem to grasp that what is conservative changes over time and context. Any many were outraged by their music at first until they became part of the canon. They all rebelled within their arts. Some supported governments you would hate, those how did. Others supported revolution.

The writer of the article you posted (Beethoven) defines himself as Marxist (I do not mention this for crude blame purposes) and has a wide-ranging political and social view that defines conservative values through the embrace of revolutionary principles. I only glanced through his writing so I can’t say much about it. This blog post could be representative.

I read the Beethoven article — I found it interesting and worthwhile. Yet I am not sure it will help us much in sorting through the •ideological confusion• of our time.

I would also say — as respectfully as possible — that I do not get from what you write much of a sense of where you stand politically and socially.

However, it's likely too late. The American Republic has already faltered—Democrats are bringing in 10s of millions of illegal aliens, to bolster their voting-rolls, while they attempt to Jail and persecute their "democratic" rival. They/You are not "Pro-Democracy". The Far-Left doesn't actually believe in "Democracy". They merely want the illusion of Legitimacy of a fundamentally Illegitimate Government—because nobody with common sense can now ignore these degrees of cultural, social, and political corruption and rot.

People require greater institutions of Accountability.

How would you, Iwannaplato, respond to this? Shouldn’t you have some sort of encapsulating view about what is going on?

I read, listen to and watch a wide range of topical opinions because I am interested in the way that people interpret their world(s). So I seek out people like Stew Peters, Nick Fuentes, and others who have been excluded from the major platforms. I see a rather startling increase in the sort of discourse Peters expounds here.

I neither agree or disagree, myself, but watch things as they unfold. What are your thoughts?

[Iwannaplato]

The writer of the article you posted (Beethoven) defines himself as Marxist (I do not mention this for crude blame purposes) and has a wide-ranging political and social view that defines conservative values through the embrace of revolutionary principles. I only glanced through his writing so I can’t say much about it. This blog post could be representative.

I read the Beethoven article — I found it interesting and worthwhile. Yet I am not sure it will help us much in sorting through the •ideological confusion• of our time.

I would also say — as respectfully as possible — that I do not get from what you write much of a sense of where you stand politically and socially.

I probably would not say Beethovan was a Marxist, though I'm sure to many of the conservatives of the day, had they understood his sympathies, would have viewed him with the distaste the right has for communists. The point was not to be so specific, but to point at him hardly being a figure of the right wing or conservatives as Wizard seems to want to fantasize. I don't think the article helps us sort through ideological confusion at this time. Of course, it was a response to what I think is a hilarious post of Wizard's that also does not help with that for a variety of reasons and most of them not positive for his version of modern conservativism.

I would find it hard to categorize myself. I come out of a very liberal family. I went left from there, towards an anarchist left. I don't feel I understand economics well enough to weigh in, though there are many changes I would suggest right off the bat in relation to US and even European capitalism. I actually think some are conservative, but the Left would be happy with, for example - allowing corporate charters to be revoked as it was originally intended, some serious banking reforms - I don't like their ability to create money out of nothing and so on. On the social end I would probably be seen as Left by the Right and Right by the Left on some issues. I don't share the urgency to keep increasing the population at its current rates.

My main concerns are about the misuse and increasing centralization of power and not who is having sex with whom and what they want to be called. I would align with the right on many of the things that are happening with trans and children.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: I added to my previous post after you posted this one.

[Iwannaplato]

Note: I added to my previous post after you posted this one.

Right off the bat, I don't agree with the partisan analysis. The US is a mess but I find bipartisan responsibility. And I actually think that Wizard's one sided sense of the problems is very dangerous, just as people who are on 'the' other side doing the same thing are pressing a very dangerous belief and one that has been intentionally given to them. That the people with power love it when people oversimplify the issue and aim rage at other generally powerless people. There's more to say about his post, but that shine's out so strongly to me, I don't want to bother yet.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One thing I want to say — I have said it before since it is a large part of my approach to the analysis of current events — is that people, any person really, has to take a shot at interpretation of The World.

My ideas here were influenced largely by two sources. One, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Frank Kermode). The other A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (Michael Barkun).

Just as we must have, or perhaps I should say we must resort to, an underlying metaphysical view of the world, even if we have never acknowledged it nor made it clear, so we have no choice but to concoct or assemble a view, a description, an interpretation, of what is going on in our society and nation and world.

The main thing is that intensely variant interpretive pictures are being tossed up and they float over the landscape like giant balloons. Narratives are woven and they are •successful• to the degree they have enough tie-points with realness (reality) so that they seem to answer fundamental questions. A description is power; to have a description is a tool in order to feel powerful in one’s world and to imagine that through one’s interpretation one is not a victim, or is less a victim, of the Vast Powers that have obvious forms of power.

The other thing about interpretation and interpretive models — in the context of thinking about America — is that the very definition of America is really the principal battleground.

Power-groupings, certainly, battle to send up their operative definition (a corporate/nation model that dominated in the last war for example) which dovetails with a global/hegemonic neo-imperial model.

And then there are internal political and social models such as that of the Left-Progressive in contrast with a reactionary, Right-tending, nationalistic model of that class that perceives it is being •dispossessed• by political and economic elites with the power to determine policy. (And as you might say it is the Reagan Republicans that set in motion so much of the dispossession that has now come to fruition).

Kermode’s analysis is really literary and involves interpretation of texts, though he delves into Biblical literary mystery to lay out his case. Barkun gets right into the nitty-gritty of what we here would likely describe as lunatic interpretation (space beings that have secretly taken over world government and David Ick-type theories — and there are many variations).

I know that my reference to Ortega y Gasset’s •mass man• is cynically interpreted by my *fierce opponents* here, but really we have to recognize that there is a lower-level interpretive mechanism that takes shape among those of lower station and without (much) education — in contradistinction to those who do have the •proper• and •sound• tools of analysis.

So, how do we deal with the intrusion of that Mass Man into the world of influence? Who is •qualified• to interpret and who is not?

The point though is that everyone — and everyone here — strives after a powerful interpretive model and a sort of •key• that opens the door to truthful view.

[promethean75]

"a powerful interpretive model and a sort of •key• that opens the door to truthful view."

Well a truthful view willing to accept even the hard disagreeable existential truths would be the view of an atheist materialist. And u can't really solve the 'problem' of man until u have at least identified the circumstances that make him a problem. His mortality, the nature of his relative morals and the war between everyone over property, freedom and rights. So u gotta know what you're workin with before u set to problem solving.

If u accept these conditions in advance - that we are mortal creatures in a godless universe engaged in a battle with everyone over property rights and reproductive privileges - u either become a stirnerite nihilist egoist and step not shyly back from property and law, but boldly use it to increase your own wealth and happiness... or u become a chill humanist secularist John Stuart Mill kind of guy who believes everyone should be happy even tho it's all meaningless.

But 'interpretive models' as u call them are all just narratives fighting for dominance, and they're all just the biased interests of the group that uses them and understands the world through them.

The only unbiased 'philosophy of man' I've found is historical materialism. It's as close to science as a philosophical analysis can get.

Everything else is either metaphysics, epistemology, some variation of ethical relativism, or the hidden interests of some group tryna manipulate another group with a narrative... all giant philosophical time wasters.

I've seen a lot of good men get taken by philosophy. Sixty year old philosophers still completely consumed and turned mad by the question of whether or not they can step into the same river twice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well a truthful view willing to accept even the hard disagreeable existential truths would be the view of an atheist materialist. And u can't really solve the 'problem' of man until u have at least identified the circumstances that make him a problem. His mortality, the nature of his relative morals and the war between everyone over property, freedom and rights. So u gotta know what you're workin with before u set to problem solving.

If u accept these conditions in advance - that we are mortal creatures in a godless universe engaged in a battle with everyone over property rights and reproductive privileges - u either become a stirnerite nihilist egoist and step not shyly back from property and law, but boldly use it to increase your own wealth and happiness... or u become a chill humanist secularist John Stuart Mill kind of guy who believes everyone should be happy even tho it's all meaningless.

You have made here a series of *interpretive assertions*. They appear true -- they seem thoroughly true to you obviously -- but they are not necessarily true. I do not think the view of an *atheist materialist* is a view that will result in good outcomes. However, if you feel inclined to give me an example, or to speak from your own experience, I am all ears.

The other assertions you make seem good ones. But they can be true within many different metaphysical models.

Your view, obviously, is one of Marxian reductionism. I say this without a specific condemnation FYI. I don't, and I don't think one can, dismiss the hard economic and material factors. However -- there is more.

But 'interpretive models' as u call them are all just narratives fighting for dominance, and they're all just the biased interests of the group that uses them and understands the world through them.

No, that cannot be right. Take a far more simple example of going from point A to point B. Or fixing a washing machine. It is not a question of *competing narratives* since one general route is the clear one.

Biased interests, group interests and fights for dominance are real however.

Again you are presenting a hard and fast interpretive model. So you, too, are grasping for one to make sense of your world.

The only unbiased 'philosophy of man' I've found is historical materialism. It's as close to science as a philosophical analysis can get.

Personally, I cannot dismiss, elude or avoid what is true in this statement. But it ain't the entire truth.

[Harbal]

The fare is in town, and although I've never liked travelling fun fares, I'm tempted to check this one out.

Fare1.jpg (44.07 KiB) Viewed 1397 times