Trevor Lynch is called out for “Hating on Hollywood”:
“Speaking of fantasy, “Trevor Lynch” is not precisely a real person himself. Rather, he is the alter-ego of a tiresome and self-important fellow named Greg Johnson who runs a vastly pretentious website called Counter-Currents.com, on which many of the essays that comprise his Guide originally appeared.”
Speaking of terrible Hollywood movies, the new Will Smith movie, “After Earth,” is supposed to be coming out today. It is being called one of the worst movies of all time by critics and “one of the world’s most expensive bar mitzvahs.”
After downing a double Pepto-Bismol, I broke out my copy of Sexual Persona and once again went through the first chapter or so. Paglia is weird, and it’s clear that her ideas are less profound than her press makes her out to be. Camille’s lens into art has been fabricated by the perverted and hostile combination of the Frenchman de Sade, and the Jewish doctor, Sigmund Freud. Great pair, eh?
You make Paglia sound like a buffoon when in fact she is stalwart defender of the high culture of the west, patriarchy and men. You seem to imply that her Sade/Freudian “lens” into art was an arbitrary choice and that what she is seeing in western art isn’t there but the product of an arbitrarily selected, warped “lens.” Except her “lens” into art, however it’s constructed, wouldn’t show anything if there wasn’t a persistent, violent, irrational, sexual thread running through Western art. She uses Apollo and Dionysus as conceptual tools as well as Sade and Freud. By mentioning only the Jew and Frenchman, your remark doesn’t communicate an entirely accurate picture of her approach to art and history. In some ways, Paglia is simply commenting on and expounding on tensions between civilization and nature that people have been remarking on since ancient times. That’s what the Dionysian impulse is, the notion there is this pulsing, surging, erotic force that runs through nature and that is at the root of all creativity but that is also highly destructive when unrestrained. Not an idea original to Sade or to Freud.
I have to ask again, what types of homosexuality are acceptable and why?
I’d say that which will happen anyway in private and that no one can prevent. Otherwise, in terms of public policy, nothing:
No gay marraige
No civil unions
No legal recognition of any kind for homosexual unions
No military service
No legal rights or perogatives related specifically to homosexuality
What more do you want?
After tolerance of sodomy, there will come tolerance of pedophilia and everything else, no holds barred. BEFORE tolerance of sodomy, there came the tolerance of heterosexual fornication, divorce, pornography, immodest dress, etc. All tolerance of everything must cease.
What specific policies backed by government power do you propose to deal with the sodomites?
Lew, the ultimate solution is religious revival, not shrewd political action, although active political involvement is always our duty.
Mosin, the kind of religious revival you desire is never going to happen again. People just are not interested in that. It is dead and buried and vanquished. You might as well face it. Debating the merits of whether your contention that a revival would reverse the situation is a waste of time, even if could be shown to not be spurious, therefore. Christianity and Christians today are a powerful tool of race mixing and multi-racialism and liberalism. Christianity has always been a universal cult band therefore a bane, the fantasy’s of a few of its adherents aside.
Actually, what we are seeing is a revival of the earliest, pure Christianity. Like then, when there were homosexual sects of practicing Christians, we have come full circle and are now back to full-bore Christianity and what it really always was.