GENIUS FORUMS

A slight glance at the subject reveals that the number of them who were gay, bisexual or sympathetic and apologetic towards homosexual relationships is great.

Byron, Oscar Wilde, Foucault, Goethe, Alexander, Wittgenstein, Plato, Crowley, Da Vinci are some of them.

It is a characteristic of almost every thinking man to deep down see the greatest majority of women as they are portrayed in Quinn's Exposition. Shallow, plain, unconscious, utterly unable to grasp his profoundness, the heights of his thought, the psychological dramas he is subject to etc. He can not ever be truly intimate with them, he thinks. So he must turn to men of his level when seeking intimacy.

This is where I think intellectuals homosexuality primarily arises from.


And please, those of you fond of writing small novels in your posts, keep it concise when possible.

I think it's the other way around. Homosexuals think more than most other people.

Matt Gregory wrote:I think it's the other way around. Homosexuals think more than most other people.

It is the habit of thinking, that makes men think about women and gain insights in the vein of Exposition, that therefore makes them sympathetic towards homosexuality. I'm talking exclusively about intellectuals here. I'm not saying that homosexuality comes from the reasons I listed, for all homosexuals, but that it certainly does for thinkers.

So it's not the other way around. It is experiencing, thinking, realization and then possibly orientation.

It depends on when homosexuality is acquired in life. I think it's mostly acquired before puberty in either genetics or early childhood, but maybe not.

Matt Gregory wrote:It depends on when homosexuality is acquired in life. I think it's mostly acquired before puberty in either genetics or early childhood, but maybe not.

Maybe there are two paths to homosexuality then. One being the as you say, prepubescent one, and the one I claimed was the case with intellectuals.

And there is the issue of feminine and masculine elements to consider. If the explanation for homosexuality is the great presence of the feminine in the man (which would be Weininger's theory), and we know that some fine thinkers were gay/bisexual, had homosexual tendencies, we must question the notion that more masculine equals better thinking. Or we must reject Weininger's theory. Or it is the case his theory is only applicable to homosexuals of average intelligence.

To me, your list of thinkers is barely suggestive of your theory let alone supportive of it.

Boyan wrote:It is a characteristic of almost every thinking man to deep down see the greatest majority of women as they are portrayed in Quinn's Exposition. Shallow, plain, unconscious, utterly unable to grasp his profoundness, the heights of his thought, the psychological dramas he is subject to etc. He can not ever be truly intimate with them, he thinks. So he must turn to men of his level when seeking intimacy.

If an intellectual person turned to someone of his own sex for intimacy it wouldn't be another intellectual, it would probably a more promiscuous male with little interest in any higher thought. The only reason he may choose a male instead of a female is because the male might be easier to fuck than your average female, i.e. he wont have to cater to the emotional needs of a woman. Simply put, your theory is way off base because the sexual dynamic doesn't revolve around two people being on the same "level", there needs to be a dominant/passive, or masculine/feminine interaction at work. If you observe homosexual couples, you can usually tell right off the bat which one is the man, and which one is the woman in the relationship.

Boyan wrote:And please, those of you fond of writing small novels in your posts, keep it concise when possible.

Why?

We have the poems of Sappho, which we now know were about the torrid love affairs with her students at her school on the isle of Lesbos. Yet, at 19, the girls graduate, move back to Athens, marry, and raise families.

And who did they marry?
Only the most notorious homosexual pedophiles in all history.
And what was the result of all this depravity?
Only the greatest generations of genius in all history.

But I dont recall the Greeks ever labeling anyone on the basis of their sexual preference. It was dont ask, dont tell. Which stood in stark contrast to my time in New Orleans, where every fag I met wanted me to know he was, oblivious of the fact that I didnt care.

There now seem to be some biochemical clues in males, altho I dont know of any with Lesbians. And while I know of some encounters men had with boys and teen males, I've yet to hear of a man who did not look back fondly on some encounter he had with an older woman. Which is curious now that we see court cases over what I remember so many of us regarded with gratitude.

If imprinting, as suggested, is a factor, then why do people get their panties in a wad if a woman imprints a boy on women? Does anyone worry about girls imprinting on women? It didnt seem to create a problem with Sappho. Its curious that while girls seem to think they were abused by men, boys seem to think they've been served well by women.

Carl G wrote:

Boyan wrote:And please, those of you fond of writing small novels in your posts, keep it concise when possible.

Why?

Because it's not good for the eyes to read a lot from the pc.

Boyan wrote:

Carl G wrote:

Boyan wrote:And please, those of you fond of writing small novels in your posts, keep it concise when possible.

Why?

Because it's not good for the eyes to read a lot from the pc.

We'll see. Its a problem I work on at http://www.dc-pc.org . I've actually written large novels, but designed and edited for presentation on this screen. For mature, sentient, audiences.

.



-boy toy postulates-
Boyan - A slight glance at the subject reveals that the number of them who were gay, bisexual or sympathetic and apologetic towards homosexual relationships is great.

-tomas-
So, what yer sayin' is, "a slight glance" is all it takes to fall headlong into a gay (fudgepacking) relationship?




-boy toy-
Byron, Oscar Wilde, Foucault, Goethe, Alexander, Wittgenstein, Plato, Crowley, Da Vinci are some of them.

-tomas-
Have you held seances -or- the Ouija board?




-boy toy goes on-
It is a characteristic of almost every thinking man to deep down see the greatest majority of women as they are portrayed in Quinn's Exposition.

-tomas-
Do you swing both ways?




-boy toy-
Shallow, plain, unconscious, utterly unable to grasp his profoundness, the heights of his thought, the psychological dramas he is subject to etc.

-tomas-
This is a bit too steamy for my liking. Think i'll go rent a copy of Deep Throat... an watch with my girlfriend, maybe learn a pointer or two or three or...




-boy toy-
He can not ever be truly intimate with them, he thinks.

-tomas-
Yo, there, boy toy... better yet - consider camping out on the grave of a couple of these old codgers. Suggest you sleep on it (the grave) during the days and stay up all the nights with them while reading aloud to their bony mass now turned to dust? a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".




-boy toy-
So he must turn to men of his level when seeking intimacy.

-tomas-
Fawk. Suppose if i became famous enough to appear on David Letterman, Jay Leno, or my current fave, Conan O'Brien, i might give a quickie "hug" to him and a soft squeeze on his right butt-cheek when the camera(s) aren't properly 'positioned' to see all or tell all. I'd have the microphone deadened so it wouldn't pick up the heavy panting or the wet kiss on his earlobe... spit or swallow?




-boy toy-
This is where I think intellectuals homosexuality primarily arises from.

-tomas-
Best to carry a duffel bag full of clean underwear... like momma said when you was growing up, "Be sure to have clean underwear on because you never know when you may be in (or have) an "accident" ;-)




-boy toy-
And please, those of you fond of writing small novels in your posts, keep it concise when possible.

-tomas-
Did you say that with a lisp?



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971



.

daybrown wrote: We'll see. Its a problem I work on at http://www.dc-pc.org . I've actually written large novels, but designed and edited for presentation on this screen. For mature, sentient, audiences.

[/quote]


Nice website. What you wrote about Serbia in the Machiavelli short section is false. Serbia did not expel Catholics from its territory, but Croats had expelled Serbs (some several hundred thousands of them) from their homes in Slavonia in the operation 'Storm'. Serbia's standard of living is lower than that of Croatia.

Germany in the meeting in Maastricht expressed its wishes on dismantling the big Yugoslavian state, and that was cool with NATO because that way, there would be 5 and then 6 states instead of one big one there, and they are succeeding in their goal of making them join NATO, and keeping them away from the Russian zone of influence, because those little countries are now weak of course, so they must join and will fight America;s wars, and feel the impact of its cultural imperialism and its degrading consequences.

NATO bombing in 1999. was of 'humanitarian' reasons because Milosevic was expelling Albanians from the Serbian region of Kosovo who were committing atrocities on the non albanian population there since 1878, yet the number of refugees actually increased because of the bombing, especially of the non- Albanian population. Now Americans are fighting the war against terrorists, just like Serbia did then. How ironic, that Americans fought against a Christian nation while strongly supporting two Muslim European countries - Bosnia and Albania, and now there will be another one - Kosovo, which is so polluted because NATO used the opportunity to get rid of uranium while they bombed it, that many started getting cancers, leukemia etc (Italian soldiers, part of KFOR reported getting it i.e.).

Oh yes NATO used cassette bombs on civilian targets too and destroyed the huge Chinese embassy because of 'old maps'.

Almost all non albanians fled kosovo following the bombing, many churches and medieval cultural monuments where destroyed or damaged in the pogroms, and now it's almost completely ethnically pure albanian state, a safe haven for drug dealers, human trafficking, criminals of all kind and muslim extremists.

Boyan wrote:[ What you wrote about Serbia in the Machiavelli short section is false. Serbia did not expel Catholics from its territory, but Croats had expelled Serbs (some several hundred thousands of them) from their homes in Slavonia in the operation 'Storm'. Serbia's standard of living is lower than that of Croatia.

Germany in the meeting in Maastricht expressed its wishes on dismantling the big Yugoslavian state, and that was cool with NATO because that way, there would be 5 and then 6 states instead of one big one there, and they are succeeding in their goal of making them join NATO, and keeping them away from the Russian zone of influence, because those little countries are now weak of course, so they must join and will fight America;s wars, and feel the impact of its cultural imperialism and its degrading consequences.

NATO bombing in 1999. was of 'humanitarian' reasons because Milosevic was expelling Albanians from the Serbian region of Kosovo who were committing atrocities on the non albanian population there since 1878, yet the number of refugees actually increased because of the bombing, especially of the non- Albanian population. Now Americans are fighting the war against terrorists, just like Serbia did then. How ironic, that Americans fought against a Christian nation while strongly supporting two Muslim European countries - Bosnia and Albania, and now there will be another one - Kosovo, which is so polluted because NATO used the opportunity to get rid of uranium while they bombed it, that many started getting cancers, leukemia etc (Italian soldiers, part of KFOR reported getting it i.e.).

Oh yes NATO used cassette bombs on civilian targets too and destroyed the huge Chinese embassy because of 'old maps'.

Almost all non albanians fled kosovo following the bombing, many churches and medieval cultural monuments where destroyed or damaged in the pogroms, and now it's almost completely ethnically pure albanian state, a safe haven for drug dealers, human trafficking, criminals of all kind and muslim extremists.

Oh, I know its a mess. What I posted is the hype that was bought into, which to be credible, needs to have some examples behind it. It reminds me of Gibbon, who noted that in the Roman province of Illricium, the Pope captured the area, seized land, and gave it to his partisans to be there to keep an eye on things for him. Then, the Sultan took it, and did the same thing, as did the Patriarch in his turn. In 1787, Gibbon noted that this had been the cause of many wars, and he expected there would be many more.

We knew the province as "Yugoslavia". I dont think there is anyway to sort it out now in any fashion that could be regarded as 'just'. I was born on a farm in Minnesota in 1939, and remember the animosity the Catholic Church created with a policy that demanded that all marriages with a Catholic be performed in a Catholic church, and that the non- Catholic mate had to sign a commitment to raise the kids Catholic.

I remember also the notion that Catholic kids were flooding the school systems, and trying to raise taxes that protestants would have to pay for. Again, I dont really have the numbers, am simply reporting what people thot, which is so similar to what the Serbs thot. There were similar problems in Northern Ireland. But it all went away as Catholic women decided to ignore the priests and use birth control. There is now, however, a similar phenomena brewing over Muslim women.

As long as you have a system of "one man, one vote", you will hear people bitch about clergy ranting from pulpits trying to maximize the birthrate of their congregations.

The thing is that during the wars in the 90's, which Serbia fought, it did no foreign propaganda of its own, no lobbying, but the Muslim side did a lot on the other side with all the money from other Muslim states (like Saudi Arabia, Syria...), so the world got a pretty one sided view of it, and bought into the media hype, while neglecting or being ignorant of the history of the region (which is not a quick read).

Boyan wrote:The thing is that during the wars in the 90's, which Serbia fought, it did no foreign propaganda of its own, no lobbying, but the Muslim side did a lot on the other side with all the money from other Muslim states (like Saudi Arabia, Syria...), so the world got a pretty one sided view of it, and bought into the media hype, while neglecting or being ignorant of the history of the region (which is not a quick read).

i had not realized that, but it certainly makes sense. I only knew because I read the back pages, a habit I picked up during the Goldwater campaign, when I realized how grossly big media could distort what was really going on. Just like 911.

daybrown wrote:

Boyan wrote:The thing is that during the wars in the 90's, which Serbia fought, it did no foreign propaganda of its own, no lobbying, but the Muslim side did a lot on the other side with all the money from other Muslim states (like Saudi Arabia, Syria...), so the world got a pretty one sided view of it, and bought into the media hype, while neglecting or being ignorant of the history of the region (which is not a quick read).

i had not realized that, but it certainly makes sense. I only knew because I read the back pages, a habit I picked up during the Goldwater campaign, when I realized how grossly big media could distort what was really going on. Just like 911.

I don't even have to state how important the media battlefield is in modern times, of which Serbs were completely ignorant.Yeah, we hired a lobbying agency in Washington just a few years ago. Plenty of things were involved, that making out what was really going on is not easy even for someone like me, who is a citizen of the country and knows its complex history and the puzzling character of its people.

But look at the time before the media had a huge influence. I mean, the country was fighting alongside with the Allies in both world wars (Bulgarians i.e. were fighting against the Allies both times), took the full force attack of the Turks in the middle ages, and then in the 90's it suddenly became the bad guy of Europe.

During the WW2 i.e. some 500 US pilots who were shot down over the enemy lines (because Serbia was occupied) were rescued and kept safe from the Germans by the Serbian resistance, and when they wanted to express their gratitude, the US government told them no because 'some ethnic groups in Yugoslavia' wouldn't be pleased with that. And it was one of the biggest rescue operations behind enemy lines in US history.

Here's a part of an open letter by: Richard L. Felman Major USAF (Ret) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L._Felman


'The most incredible part of our rescue was that before each mission, our bomber crews were briefed by the highest levels of American intelligence that if shot down over Yugoslavia, we were to stay away from the Serbian people as they were collaborating with the Germans and "cutting off the ears of American airmen" before turning them over. Only after we were shot down did we find out the amazing thoroughness with which the truth about the Serbs was being distorted.'

Of the three, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, & Muslim, it is the former that was most heir to the Greek republican traditions while the others were embedded more in the tyrannic traditions of the Levantine scriptures. So, naturally,k the Serbs were less misogynistic and their women used birth control.

I remember during the 1980 Olympics, on a sunday morning news show, where a western jounalist interviewed the CEO of the new Yugo factory. The CEO was asked why all the management was Serb, while all the workers were Croat and Albanian. The CEO noted that because the Serbian women practiced birth control, they only had 1-2 kids, whereas the Catholic Priests and Muslim Mullahs forbid it, and that the large families meant that the parents could not afford to send their kids to college.

Impeccable logic. I soon became aware, from the back pages you refer to, that the Croat and Albanian kids were flooding the school system at the very same time that the Serbs wanted to improve the quality of education, not just the size. And I understood perfectly why Serbian parents withdrew their kids from the public school system and organized private schools, a phenomena we see going on now in the US. And now that education is being offered online, this kind of schooling is increasing dramatically for white kids, while the public school systems are seeing increasing proportions of minorities. AND- declining academic performance, which is motivating white parents to take their kids out of such mixed schools.

Like the US, I learned that the Yugoslavian legislative system required a 2/3 majority to change the constitution. in 1980, the Serbs were 34% of the population, and therefore could prevent changes that they viewed as detrimental; but the demographic writing was on the wall. As I posted at http://dc-pc.org/machveli/machveli.html which has been up for several years now:

"When a republic [Yugoslavia], has an intractable political problem [the taxing of the professional classes to pay for the masses of Catholic and Muslim kids who were flooding the school systems], it will find a man of flawed character [Malosevic], to do what is distasteful, but necessary [secede and butcher 10% of the Muslims and Catholics to drive them out of majority Serb areas]. Then, after the fait accompli, they will discover his faults, and send him away while they get to enjoy the fruits of the new status quo."

True genocide would have butchered as many Catholics and Muslims as possible, but as Machiavelli noted, 10% was sufficient to clear an area of the other 90%. It is a difficult question to determine what the cost of management should be. Cuba has driven many of its professional classes to move to Miami, and the same thing has more recently been going on in Venezuela. Many Serbs fled to the US, which continues to get professionals from all over the world because homelands suffer with revolution, civil unrest, corruption, and/or demagoguery.

Nevertheless, ignorant illegals vastly outnumber the professional classes coming in, and as with Yugoslavia, this threatens to destabilize the republic with demagogues pandering to ethnicity. Gibbon noted that the aristocracy encourage immigration to Rome from tribes that lacked strong republican traditions. Machiavelli saw how they funded the campaigns of candidates promising to the tribes what we now call 'entitlements', but doing so while using hidden means to reduce the taxes on the rich. Of course, this produces what we now call "fiscal deficits", and Machiavelli said that the governments, which cannot tax the rich, go to *borrow* the money from them.

And this works for a while, but at some point some creditor sees that the tax base will no longer service the debt much less pay it off. At which point he refuses to lend more and financial panic results. In the case of Rome, this happens at the very time when Caesar returns from Gaul with all the loot that he used to pay his troops. So- he came into Rome, put down the riots and civil unrest, and took over. Gibbon comment that he, and his successor Octavian, took pains to retain all the outward forms of the republic while nevertheless appointing all the office holders and gutting the institutions.

Today, we have the mass media doing much the same, apparently having decided to give us queen Hillary to replace tyrannic Bush. But when you have an electorate that is this irrational, there's no help for it. If there is economic panic because of the federal debt and deficit, there is no Caesar with the *gold* to pay the troops to restore order. Somehow, I dont think nice lithographs of dead presidents will work. The more likely result, if I understand what Machiavelli and Jared Diamond have to say, is the dissolution of the Untied States of Denial, and widespread violence to drive Hispanics back to Mexico.

So basically you're saying those who emancipated their women are screwed because of population decrease. It is obvious as white plague is raging across Europe and white population in general.

Boyan wrote:So basically you're saying those who emancipated their women are screwed because of population decrease. It is obvious as white plague is raging across Europe and white population in general.

No, what I am saying is what we saw at Kucha. they didnt breed welfare queens and airheads, but drafted them into brothels. The daughters of the smart women were married off into the aristocracy of other nations, most particularly Tibet and China. Some were sent to be call girls or join the harems in the courts of capitals like Xian.

Unfortunately, they didnt send girls into Mongolia; not that I blame them, none of the girls wanted to live with those hicks. But had they done so, they would have realized the hordes of Mongols multiplying and worked out a deal with China to deal with it before it got out of hand. But Kucha was only about 30,000; it was easily swept aside as the Mongols went on to conquer most of Asia.

But now, hordes dont work any more Boyan. The brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand, just dont cut it. Modern weapons require fine muscle control, better planning and infrastructure support, all of which modern women have more than men.

So- yes you will see a near term decline in the number of white women as the airheads are taken out of the gene pools, but the smarter women will be using other women, of all races, with in vitro egg implantation to produce that which the richest men of the planet have always wanted above all: trophy blonde wives.... who will then inherit control of the business when the lech dies. Like we saw in SCOTUS last year. Given how long the marriage lasted, I think she made over 250 million/year for having sex with the old bastard. That's a lesson that has not been missed by other Uberwench.

With that kind of money, she can build a resort hotel on Malta for the men who cooperate with her management. Why Malta? The age of consent at Malta is 12.