I love your dedicated and true sounding work. It is a real inspiration. Anyone who takes the time and effort to fully grasp what you have to say and consider it should see a beautiful and strengthening intellectual picture. Fools merely cut you off from the beginning because they don't like that you are scratching festering wounds. From the United States, you are an eagle amongst the fowl!
My Grandar did the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "la la la la la la, I can't hear you" when I got talking about Frankfurt School and the Beatles. Very funny.
Your choice to include that picture of naked children is bizzare and depraved, especially given how critical you are of a supposed communist sex conspiracy. I don't think anyone needs that image (or any image of its kind) to better understand the content.
The black lines you've added do fuck all. Get rid of it, it's shameful.
I don't care to explain my politics nor do I care about understanding your disconnected reactionary nonesense. I shouldn't have to tell a (again, supposed) former school teacher that posting images of naked children is fucked up. There've been plenty of historical frontpages that don't need to be posted, let alone those with naked children.
If needed, you could provide them as evidence by writing about them, although I don't know why I need to tell this to an English Lit major.
The reason I don't want to is because I don't care. What I do care about it seeing people post images of naked children, and I'll calm down when I stop seeing it posted.
Your comments are odd. The whole article is about how it's wrong to sexualise children, but you are claiming this is 'reactionary' and the facts outlined are a 'conspiracy'. You also claim the black lines don't do anything, but they mean their genitals aren't visible.
Definitely going to look at Adorno and Beetles lyrics side by side.
In any case I like this as a declaration of intent. If you want to uproot people from a deranged state you need a proposition that is ganz andere and quite as deranging, so as to say ‘you need to look at where you are from wayyy over here’, ‘this is how wrong you are’.
I'd like to know what the evidence is for the Frankfurt School - Adorno - Beatles link. A cursory google didn't reveal anything and I don't have a copy of Coleman's book (he is the original proponent of this theory?) - does he give any firm or at least compelling evidence?
It's not the kind of thing you could easily find on Google - certainly not with a cursory search. What do you mean by 'compelling evidence'? Enough to convince a Beatles fanboy? I'm not sure anything could do that even though none of the Beatles could read or write music.
Whether Coleman is right doesn't affect the main point: the Beatles promoted a culture of free love and drugs. And they put a Satanist who ate his own excrement in a group called 'people we like'.
Thanks for replying Will. Agreed on the fanboys, but any evidence would be a start; "compelling" as in highly plausible or from a credible source would be great, and "firm" as in high degree of confidence would be excellent.
As I said, I don't have Coleman's book so I don't know what he wrote specifically and what evidence he presented (if any). Presumably you do, as you are quoting him and therefore (as the assertion is presented without further contextualisation or qualification except that his death more or less coincided with the Beatles breaking up) believe him to be at least a credible source, hence why I asked.
Not a big deal if the evidence isn't there, as you say it doesn't affect the thrust of what you're saying, but if so the assertion should be properly qualified in the essay.
This is all very negative so I should rightly say I have been enjoying your work very much so far - great stuff.
It's been common knowledge since he became famous that Bernie Taupin writes Elton John's lyrics. Psychedelics are also proving to be wonderful for treating mental health.
The Age of Consent in the UK was 12, until 1875. The Age of Consent for homosexuality was 21 when it was legalised in 1967.
Alfred Kinsey had bisexual threesomes with his wife, but wasn't gay. These fringe freaks don't speak for the bulk of gay people, most gays don't have anything to do with the governing bodies of those organisations.
12 meant pre-pubescent children were protected. The movements outlined in the article, by contrast, aimed at sexualising all children, including babies. Gay movements didn't choose age 21 themselves: they had it imposed on them.
'Beginning with childhood, Kinsey had lived with two shameful secrets: he was both a homosexual and a masochist.'
Whether or not all LGTBQ people see the logical implications of the premises they accept is irrelevant. What matters is the ideology - literally, the logic of the ideas. Dworkin and others thought it through to its conclusion.
He was in the closet and strung his wife along with bi threesomes? Sounds like Philip Schofield! I still don't buy it about him being gay. I said it from the off.
These sociopathic people use organisations to push through their agendas and useful idiots pander to them.
Great work Will!
I love your dedicated and true sounding work. It is a real inspiration. Anyone who takes the time and effort to fully grasp what you have to say and consider it should see a beautiful and strengthening intellectual picture. Fools merely cut you off from the beginning because they don't like that you are scratching festering wounds. From the United States, you are an eagle amongst the fowl!
My Grandar did the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "la la la la la la, I can't hear you" when I got talking about Frankfurt School and the Beatles. Very funny.
My jaw hit the floor as i listened to and read along to this. Great work, Sir!
Your choice to include that picture of naked children is bizzare and depraved, especially given how critical you are of a supposed communist sex conspiracy. I don't think anyone needs that image (or any image of its kind) to better understand the content.
The black lines you've added do fuck all. Get rid of it, it's shameful.
Define 'conspiracy' and explain why you think this is a 'supposed' one.
That picture was the frontpage of a German magazine. It's important context and evidence.
I don't care to explain my politics nor do I care about understanding your disconnected reactionary nonesense. I shouldn't have to tell a (again, supposed) former school teacher that posting images of naked children is fucked up. There've been plenty of historical frontpages that don't need to be posted, let alone those with naked children.
If needed, you could provide them as evidence by writing about them, although I don't know why I need to tell this to an English Lit major.
But the picture proves it's not nonsense, Aidan. Why can't you understand that?
And is the reason you don't want to define 'conspiracy' that it's your substitute for arguing when you can't?
Please calm down and proofread your pitiful spelling in future posts.
The reason I don't want to is because I don't care. What I do care about it seeing people post images of naked children, and I'll calm down when I stop seeing it posted.
Your comments are odd. The whole article is about how it's wrong to sexualise children, but you are claiming this is 'reactionary' and the facts outlined are a 'conspiracy'. You also claim the black lines don't do anything, but they mean their genitals aren't visible.
This is a depraved individual masquerading as an intellectual, best to leave them be.
You mean Simone de Beauvoir?
No! Lol. The individual complaining about the picture. It seems to say more about them than your whole point.
Definitely going to look at Adorno and Beetles lyrics side by side.
In any case I like this as a declaration of intent. If you want to uproot people from a deranged state you need a proposition that is ganz andere and quite as deranging, so as to say ‘you need to look at where you are from wayyy over here’, ‘this is how wrong you are’.
I don't know if Coleman is right, but it's interesting - especially with the Schoenberg connection.
I'd like to know what the evidence is for the Frankfurt School - Adorno - Beatles link. A cursory google didn't reveal anything and I don't have a copy of Coleman's book (he is the original proponent of this theory?) - does he give any firm or at least compelling evidence?
It's not the kind of thing you could easily find on Google - certainly not with a cursory search. What do you mean by 'compelling evidence'? Enough to convince a Beatles fanboy? I'm not sure anything could do that even though none of the Beatles could read or write music.
Whether Coleman is right doesn't affect the main point: the Beatles promoted a culture of free love and drugs. And they put a Satanist who ate his own excrement in a group called 'people we like'.
Thanks for replying Will. Agreed on the fanboys, but any evidence would be a start; "compelling" as in highly plausible or from a credible source would be great, and "firm" as in high degree of confidence would be excellent.
As I said, I don't have Coleman's book so I don't know what he wrote specifically and what evidence he presented (if any). Presumably you do, as you are quoting him and therefore (as the assertion is presented without further contextualisation or qualification except that his death more or less coincided with the Beatles breaking up) believe him to be at least a credible source, hence why I asked.
Not a big deal if the evidence isn't there, as you say it doesn't affect the thrust of what you're saying, but if so the assertion should be properly qualified in the essay.
This is all very negative so I should rightly say I have been enjoying your work very much so far - great stuff.
The Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho says the same thing as Dr Coleman.
Coleman's evidence is mentioned in the article: Michael Jackson buying their songs, plus the Schoenberg link.
Ultimately, Coleman could be wrong and my point about the Beatles is still true. They certainly advanced the Frankfurt School agenda.
It's been common knowledge since he became famous that Bernie Taupin writes Elton John's lyrics. Psychedelics are also proving to be wonderful for treating mental health.
The Age of Consent in the UK was 12, until 1875. The Age of Consent for homosexuality was 21 when it was legalised in 1967.
Alfred Kinsey had bisexual threesomes with his wife, but wasn't gay. These fringe freaks don't speak for the bulk of gay people, most gays don't have anything to do with the governing bodies of those organisations.
12 meant pre-pubescent children were protected. The movements outlined in the article, by contrast, aimed at sexualising all children, including babies. Gay movements didn't choose age 21 themselves: they had it imposed on them.
'Beginning with childhood, Kinsey had lived with two shameful secrets: he was both a homosexual and a masochist.'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/alfredckinsey.htm
Whether or not all LGTBQ people see the logical implications of the premises they accept is irrelevant. What matters is the ideology - literally, the logic of the ideas. Dworkin and others thought it through to its conclusion.
He was in the closet and strung his wife along with bi threesomes? Sounds like Philip Schofield! I still don't buy it about him being gay. I said it from the off.
These sociopathic people use organisations to push through their agendas and useful idiots pander to them.