Homosexuality?

First, Ed, I think you are sort of trying to go out of your way to be offended by Ash. Second, I can mock whatever I want, especially vague summaries of studies which suggest 'pre-natal stress' can cause homosexuality. Heck, it isn't even as straightforward as that--there's a whole "risk aversion" and "seek out the exotic erotic" part to it, as well. Sure, I was being cheeky when I suggested that a punch in the stomach was all it took. But isn't that a 'pre-natal stress'? And my other tongue-in-cheek comments about why it doesn't make sense to me don't seem too unfair. Sometimes, we take the issues head-on, and sometimes, we get tired of doing that and opt for a little humor. Didn't you at least chuckle at the whole Hitler thing? Not even a little?

Ash paraphrases the premise of Orion's post as "it seems to be that some children have inborn temperaments towards overarousal, which causes them to avoid conflict, or that prenatal stress results in a temperament which seeks out the "exotic."" which I think is fair and accurate. Maybe calling it Orion's premise is too strong. Certainly, it was what he summarized as the researchers' conclusion. It sounds like a vague, horseshit conclusion to me. So instead of writing that, I poked some fun at it. I think Orion is a bright guy and I enjoy his posts. But that doesn't mean he cant sometimes be utterly full of shit---I know I am, sometimes (go checkout the anti-trust article thread). It's not my duty to research his research, especially when it seems vague, loaded, and silly on its face. It's not Ash's, either.

Orion goes on:

"For many males nowadays, it's just not worth it to play that game of Russian Roulette any longer."

Aha! So just give up on these bitches, who have turned non-cock-of-the-walk heteros into homos? Yee!

Don't get me wrong, women definitely have worked the shoe onto the other foot in many ways. I have a couple of married friends who are living examples--they wear no pants and are allowed their testicles about once every three months, and pay a terrible tithe for their use. I better stop before Ash turns against me. I'll just say this--relations bewteen any couple need to be a partnership, with give and take. Nothing sickens me more than a whipped man, especially a whipped man who is otherwise wonderful.
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo on 10/04, 3:01pm)

Post 41

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 5:59pm

Hi Ed:

I am terrible at responding line by line, especially when we are both talking about a third person's post in the first place. But in any case, I wasn't posting with "righteous indignation", so no worries there.

Nor do I think you don't know what you are talking about, if that's what you are even saying in the first place. I just think that you would have to take the broadest possible view of Orion's post, which you do by considering his premise to be "stress matters" - to consider your study to be in support of it. Ok, fair enough. In the more specific application, re: arousal and being attracted to the exotic, it isn't really related, although I would be interested in seeing something that was.

I really wasn't writing to be offensive to anyone, and generally speaking I am appreciative of both yours and Orion's posts. And Scott, I think you are right on as usual.

Relationships where either member of the couple is not a full partner are bullshit. I think the stereotype of the pussywhipped man is just gaining its rightful place alongside the longsuffering dumb bitch. I don't really think either is more prevalent, there are certainly plenty of both, and each is a shame. But I don't think either causes homosexuality; domestic abuse, alcoholism, and low self-esteem are probably the more likely resulting issues.

Ash

Post 42

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:23pm

Scott & Ash,

Fair enough. I admit that I was originally worried that you two were not being sincere. And, apparently, you were only not being serious, which is another matter altogether. One can be sincere (moral issue) without being serious (amoral issue). But, in my defense ...

You guys WERE making much fun of Orion's product of thought, and you guys DID SEEM to be blithly dismissing the notion outright - as if it were something profoundly absurd and therefore unworthy of further inspection, and I WAS in possession of evidence to the contrary. From my position/perspective, can you see why I posted as I did?

Ed

Post 43

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 7:33pm

I think you are cool, Ed. I enjoy your and Orion's posts and articles tremendously. Please always presume that when I seem rather flip that I am trying to be amusing or funny, and not nasty or dismissive. Give me the benevolent benefit of the doubt, and I will always return the favor!

Post 44

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 9:38pm

I'm not offended in the slightest... On the contrary, your responses were objective and sincere probings, and it helps me sleep much easier at night knowing that persons of your character do exist at all.

Post 45

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 9:45pm

George,

I understand your response, but I think you've missed my point... or maybe I didn't make it clear: what I describe seems like what the world nowadays has become to me.

And yes, I oftentimes feel quite alone in this world, unable to relate to the childish "heathens" hooting and hollering around me. However, I do add that I do occasionally find refreshing oases from all of this, and this website is one such place.

You might then respond, "So, you mean that a website is the only place you find people you connect with?" To which I would respond, "Sadly, and to a great degree, yes." Such is the condition of the world today... or at least my world.

What's more, recall that what happened in The Island of Dr. Moreau was fictional, and that even in the story it didn't work.

Post 46

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 9:47pm

Ed,

And yeah, that looks like the sort of research I was talking about... there are other researchers whose work I've read, too. But thanks for the acknowledgment.

Post 47

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 10:59pm

Scott, thanks for the kind words. You yourself have a serene, though delightfully joyous, magnanimity about you; which is terribly refreshing. Though I refuse (with clenched fists and gritting teeth) to elaborate further ...

Now, unexpectedly (and I suspect this may put you into a type of transient, forgettable dismay), I have arrived at a troubling crossroads - one where I feel like "a whipped man who is otherwise wonderful." I seem to have lost my Mo-Jo.

You (and Ash) seem to have taken me off-guard, and sullied me into a ball of wondrous histrionic mush (a place where that which is lovable - is loved fervently), and left me vulnerable, yearning for that tender affection that only comes from the deliberate and thoughtful regard of another who, through incessant and frenzied discovery of self and reality, has come to view life as a joyous journey, and others as wellsprings of value.

Now, may I please have my nards* back? :-O
Surely you must be done with them by now. ;-)

*deceptively catchy term that has either been originated - or merely propagated - by a witty nephew of mine

Ed

Post 48

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 11:28pm

Orion, you've earned my acknowledgement (from me, and in this instance, anything else would've been unjust). Though it wasn't merely a gift, you're still welcome.

Orion, you and I do see "eye-to-eye" on quite a few things - and on more things than I've made obvious to you.

But here's the enigma: I don't quite know what it is, but I've felt drawn to take adversarial positions against your thought on several occasions in the past and even in the present.

My current beef with you - for some damn reason, I've always had some beef with you! - regards my conception of you as the ever-attentive, fervently diligent scout for the New Right (the Machiavello-NeoCon-Straussians).

Perhaps you will take all this as a compliment (you have great skill; and it is acknowledged). And perhaps my "beef" with you stems from me seeing you as a persona that is similar to myself, at least in a few, crucial ways (and through a twisted psychological transference, identifying your actions as if they were my own, and reacting strongly against that which I feel is non-Ed).

Anyway, I've always had some beef with you, but - and perhaps this is key - I've also wished that I didn't (I've connected with you on SOME level). So, when this chance arrived (where I could back your honest effort to understand difficult things), I couldn't help but to pick up the rifle and guard your meritorious advance.

Ed

Post 49

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 12:23pm

Ed,

That's strange to me, that I seem "new right" to you... I mean, I am not at all into Bible-thumping! I despise an enforced caste system; and so on.

Now, if you could explain to me what "new right" means to me, then I might be able to say, "okay, I can see myself as that"... or not.

But yeah, I do get the same reaction from most people, that I'm getting from you. Maybe I've just been reading too much Frank Miller or Alan Moore or... Ayn Rand! *L*

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/05, 12:24pm)

Post 50

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 2:52pm

Orion, here's my take on the New Right:

Through Machiavellian or Straussian eyes (read: through Wolfowitzian eyes), "Bible-thumping" is merely a diversionary tactic (opium for the masses). Instead, a Project for a New American Century and the consequent New World Order are primary (all else is secondary or peripheral).

Orion, I've said as much as I can in these few words - is it enough for adequate understanding?

Ed

Post 51

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 2:56pm

Orion, perhaps it's unfair to abstain from referencing this view. Here is a troubling article that I would like your view on (others may post as well):

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html

Ed

Post 52

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 7:45pm

Hi Ed ( and everyone):

When you think I am taking a serious or controversial stand against anything, it is usually prudent to take a step back and see if perhaps I am just being a wise-ass, because that is far more likely to be the case. Because I am infinitely more inclined to take the piss than to actually know what I am talking about. Or at least for it to appear that way.

Ash
(Edited by Ashley Frazier on 10/06, 3:27pm)

Post 53

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 11:52pm

Ed,

You know, even now, I honestly have no idea what this "new world order" business refers to. The only thing that I think needs to happen to this world is that we need to enshrine logic as a supreme virtue, and that it needs to become a more central part of human life on this planet. Call it "vulcan-ization" if you like, but I honestly think that's what is called for.

If that's what you have in mind by "new world order", then yes, that's me. But if you're talking about the achievement of some multinational hegemony that rules over a world-wide, faith-based caste system, then I'd rather just die now than live in such a world.

Post 54

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 12:07am

Ed,

Okay, I read that link article. Here's my response:

1) Nietszche proposed the relentless pursuit of excellence, no matter what. No one could ever make a case that pre-Third Reich Jews were not a model of self-sustenance; they were strong, though not in the way that Hitler appreciated.

Keep in mind that the recent book, The Hidden Hitler, points out Hitler's strong homosexual component, and his and his peers' homoerotic emphases and priorities on what a "proper society" should look like. According to this, then, Nazi Germany was a sadomasochistic "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" makeover, where the premium was on outward appearances of homoerotic blond haired, blue-eyed goodness.

2) Secondly, this "world order" that Strauss apparently advocates, as ruled by subjectivist philosopher-kings, is nothing new. It's merely the caste system all over again, but on an inescapably global scale, where these "philosophers" would comprise the "brahmin" class. Ho hum.

I actually think that the only fair sort of caste system, is one where you are free to move around to your level of desire and ability. If you want to be a brahmin one year and an untouchable the next, you should have the option to move vertically if you so desire. But the problem is that, typically, the caste system is set for life.

At any rate, as I've said before... if you enstate a concrete-bound caste system, count me out. But then again, the intentionally livestockish people of this world have only themselves to blame, if such a system is implemented before their eyes.

And by the way, that "new world order" ruled by manipulative philosophers who feed the masses brainwashing, comes straight out of Mein Kampf, which I own and have only been able to skim, because the communicative logic is so poor.

Post 55

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 1:25am

Orion, perhaps you are not the great scout of the New Right after all. But, before I sign-off from this stance of mine, would you please humor me with responsive input on my perspective of the Patriot Act:

My view is that it should be called the Nationalist Act, instead of the Patriot Act, in order to prevent a definition by nonessentials.

I'm curious, what's your view on this matter?

--------------------

Also, in response to your comment about having no idea about the New World Order concept, here are a few excerpts that dramatically narrow down and refine the possibilities of what that concept refers to. The first excerpt is from the article at the link I provided above, the second is from the Asia Times Online (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/neocons_dance_a_strauss_waltz.htm), the last quotes are from a page titled: New World Order Quotes (http://www.freedomdomain.com/nwoquote.htm):

--------------------
The hallmark of Strauss' approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by "philosophers," who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish "populist" mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude. For Strauss and all of his prot�g�s (Strauss personally had 100 Ph.D. students, and the "Straussians" now dominate most university political science and philosophy departments), the greatest object of hatred was the United States itself, which they viewed as nothing better than a weak, pathetic replay of "liberal democratic" Weimar Germany.
--------------------

--------------------
Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people."

"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the 'evil empire' poses a threat to America's inner stability.

"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time [to survive]," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy", she added.
--------------------

--------------------
"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." -- H. G. Wells, in his book entitled "The New World Order" (1939)

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the
commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."--U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book "No Apologies"

"But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council." -- excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in the New York Times (January 1991)

"... it's Bush's baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler 'new order' root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier." -- William Safire, in the New York Times (February 1991)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.."--
Bill Clinton USA Today--3-11-93, page 2a

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical
Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans..."� "And so alot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the Housing Projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people feel safer in their communities"--President Bill Clinton 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund." -- part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in the New York Times (April 1994)
--------------------

Ed

Post 56

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 1:33am

Orion, I noticed that our posts have criss-crossed.

At any rate, if I had to define New World Order from the terms used above, then I'd say it stands for the "skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."

Ed

Post 57

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 10:07am

Ed,

After reading more of your posts, I'm realizing more and more that these "new world" people are doomed to failure, because they are starting with the typical flawed religious assumption, which is that human nature is fundamentally evil and needs to be constrained.

The word "religion" is related to the latin? word relegare, meaning, "to relegate", as if to a dungeon. This reveals the mentality of religion, that "bondage and discipline" are important prescriptions for the human soul. What I've said before -- over many objections -- is that religion is sadomasochism. This, then, is why I say that.

But all this "understanding" of human nature fails to appreciate that human beings are what I call "logic engines". Everything we feel, every way we react, is based upon how our "inner logic engines" evaluate all the various bits of evidence in our lives. The rapid-fire, logical conclusions that we automatically or deliberately come to regarding this evidence, dictates how we will feel and behave.

This is what's always been missing, in terms of a "world order": a culture that prizes the discipline of situational and metaphysical logic. We just don't train people how to identify and properly control their own inner logic engines. If we did that, there would be no need for religion whatsoever.

However, if we lived in a logic-worshipping world, everyone would be relatively self-assured and independent, and no religious priest-kings could live fat and sassy, as a parasite of the rest of society. Therefore, those parasites are not likely to let that ever happen.

Post 58

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 12:08pm