PDA

View Full Version : @ Julian Lee: Was Adolf Hitler a celibate?


Ahknaton
01-19-2007, 12:51 AM
I was wondering this the other day. Jung described Hitler as of the "mystical medicine man" spiritual personality type. Hitler's sex life is the subject of much rumour, speculation and propaganda (if he had one at all). Do you think he fits the mould of a celibate?

Billy Score
01-19-2007, 12:58 AM
Since we are on that topic, i was reading an article on Codreanu and the iron guard (by Julius Evola) and apparently the Iron Guard had to comply with certain standards of behavior. They could not go to the cinema, and had to remain celibate. Where does Julian Lee stand on the Iron Guard, at least in this issue?

James
01-19-2007, 01:13 AM
Was he still virgin is more interesting to know ?

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 02:46 AM
I was wondering this the other day. Jung described Hitler as of the "mystical medicine man" spiritual personality type. Hitler's sex life is the subject of much rumour, speculation and propaganda (if he had one at all). Do you think he fits the mould of a celibate?

If one accepts the account in August Kubizek's The Young Hitler I Knew, one would have to answer YES.

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 02:56 AM
I remember quite well that in those days I used to ask myself what the girls found so attractive
about Adolf. He was certainly a well-set-up young man, with regular features, but not at all what is
understood by a "handsome" man. I had seen handsome men often enough on the stage to know
what women meant by that. Perhaps it was the extraordinarily bright eyes that attracted them. Or
was it the strangely stern expression of the ascetic countenance? Or perhaps it was just his
obvious indifference to the opposite sex that invited them to test his resistance. Whatever it was,
women seemed to sense something exceptional about my friend -- as opposed to men, such as,
for instance, his teachers and professors.


Here's another gem from the same chapter:

It seemed to me quite natural that Adolf should turn with disgust and repugnance from these and
other sexual aberrations of the big city, that he refrained from masturbation which was commonly
indulged in by youths, and that in all matters of sex he obeyed those strict rules that he laid down
for himself and for the future state

Mentious
01-19-2007, 03:57 AM
I don't think it's reasonable to class Hitler as a "typical" anything, because he is such a extraordinary person in history. But my impression from reading "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer was that Hitler had the hanky-panky going on with his mistress when they would retire to his private compartment after the afternoon movie. I don't recall if Speer said anything definite, but my memory was that he hinted about it.

On the other hand, the kind of charisma that he had; the great impact he would have on people who met him personally, sounds typical of a celibate. This effect was even true for Albert Speer, his architect, and others familiar with him. (Whereas familiarity normally breeds contempt.) In the Hindu tradition there is a phenomenon of "shaktipat," which means "touch of the shakti" and means the spiritual baptism. In this spiritual baptism, certain enlivening phenomona in other people are activated and quickened. According to the Hindu tradition and yogis like Swami Muktananda, only a celibate man can transmit this baptism; this shaktipat. One could draw a theory that Hitler, assuming he was celibate, gave this kind of transmission or quickening to his entire nation. Just an interesting thought.

My understanding is that during their rise, there were strict moral codes for German soldiers, or at least for the elite cadres.

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 04:50 AM
Why would Hitler keep a mistress if he was a celibate? There were plenty of women who maintained Platonic company with Hitler...

Mentious
01-19-2007, 04:53 AM
I suppose having a 'mistress' does not always, in every time and clime, necessitate gross sex. The geisha of ancient Japan was certainly a kind of mistress, yet in most cases there was no gross sex involved. ("Gross sex" meaning copulation or other contact of the generative organs, as contrasted to flirtation and light "petting" as they used to say in the 1950s.) In more civilized and gentler times, small things are fraught with sexual feeling and adventure. I could certainly enjoy a mistress like that, one who's not always pushing herself on you carnally.

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 04:55 AM
Why would Hitler keep a mistress if he was a celibate? There were plenty of women who maintained Platonic company with Hitler...

How did he treat his mistress?

I think Hitler was probably in a situation where he could have any woman he wanted, but obviously he exercised a great deal of restraint.

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 05:03 AM
I suppose having a 'mistress' does not always, in every time and clime, necessitate gross sex. The geisha of ancient Japan was certainly a kind of mistress, yet in most cases there was no gross sex involved. ("Gross sex" meaning copulation or other contact of the generative organs, as contrasted to flirtation and light "petting" as they used to say in the 1950s.) In more civilized and gentler times, small things are fraught with sexual feeling and adventure. I could certainly enjoy a mistress like that, one who's not always pushing herself on you carnally.

I appreciate those points, but the record indicates that Hitler treated Eva Braun as his wife and was faithful to her...political considerations prevented him from marrying her until the Reich's final hours.

Hitler wanted to project an image of strength and commitment to Germany that was unmarred by any personal or familial obligations...under more ordinary circumstances, it stands to reason that he would have married Eva Braun after courting her, rather than keeping their relationship a secret outside of his inner circle.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 06:00 AM
I suppose having a 'mistress' does not always, in every time and clime, necessitate gross sex. The geisha of ancient Japan was certainly a kind of mistress, yet in most cases there was no gross sex involved. ("Gross sex" meaning copulation or other contact of the generative organs, as contrasted to flirtation and light "petting" as they used to say in the 1950s.)


I would be hesitant to accept romantic Japanese interpretations of their own past at face value. Often times the way things evolve are not how they originally began. And I think there are a great many myths around the 'geisha'.

Mentious
01-19-2007, 06:10 AM
Yeah, I know: The whole world -- past, present and future -- is just "The Gold Nugget Hotel and Casino 2007."

The point was that in various ages a mistress was not necessarily a heavily carnal affair. Notwithstanding your reductionist and monolithic notions of human history.

Everything exists in history, including romance and relative innocence.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 06:22 AM
Yeah, I know: The whole world -- past, present and future -- is just "The Gold Nugget Hotel and Casino 2007."


I don't know what this means.


The point was that in various ages a mistress was not necessarily a heavily carnal affair.


It was almost always a carnal affair, or else it wouldn't be necessary. I can't think of a case where it was not, in fact. She isn't a mistress if you 'love from a'far'.


Notwithstanding your reductionist and monolithic notions of human history.


It is interesting, is it not, that human sexuality becomes so remote and controlled when it is MONKS writing the history, instead of the secular people who wrote it before them and the ones who would write it after?

Coincidence?


Everything exists in history, including romance and relative innocence.

Uncivilized people are relatively innocent, and usually they're quite sexual.

Johnson
01-19-2007, 07:12 AM
This is the most ridiculous thread in the history of the Phora, and that's saying quite a bit.

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 07:19 AM
This is the most ridiculous thread in the history of the Phora, and that's saying quite a bit.

Ridiculous?

The "Flame of Life" is never ridiculous.

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 07:20 AM
It is interesting, is it not, that human sexuality becomes so remote and controlled when it is MONKS writing the history, instead of the secular people who wrote it before them and the ones who would write it after?

Was Dante a monk?

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 07:25 AM
Was Dante a monk?

The Divine Comedy is a history? Fascinating. Is this new film, Pan's Labyrinth, a documentary?

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 07:33 AM
The Divine Comedy is a history? Fascinating. Is this new film, Pan's Labyrinth, a documentary?

Listen, I'm not denying that mistresses engaged in sex with their masters.

What I'm saying is that modern people deride the concept of the romantic yearning that is distinct from sexual desire, and that they have been programmed to do so.

Dodge Viper
01-19-2007, 07:37 AM
This thread is very amusing.

Hitler had a mesmerizing control over his audiences through his voice, charisma, assertion, and strength of character - all typical Celibate traits and components of a restrained lifestyle. Individual accounts of his magnetism and captivation mirror and reflect the supremacy of many Celibate spiritual men of high regard and influence.
Its worth noting the potential of chastity is not lost falling short of perfection with control, just a few years with long periods of non-sexual activity in his youth and younger years potentially seeding a charismatic powerful disposition.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 07:37 AM
Listen, I'm not denying that mistresses engaged in sex with their masters.

What I'm saying is that modern people deride the concept of the romantic yearning that is distinct from sexual desire, and that they have been programmed to do so.

It is unnatural, and historically implausible. We know, for example, that the Victorian period was filled with sexuality despite the fact that it was traditionally thought of as a rather chaste age. So too the Medieval age, where we now have gleanings of the homosexual atmosphere occuring in many monastaries across the Continent.

We know full well that the Classical world was a place where all sorts of sexual acts were common place, and we know this is also the case in the modern era. It would be wise of us to take the claims of a celibate Medieval period with a grain of salt, considering who is writing about it.

Hartmann von Aue
01-19-2007, 07:42 AM
It is unnatural, and historically implausible. We know, for example, that the Victorian period was filled with sexuality despite the fact that it was traditionally thought of as a rather chaste age. So too the Medieval age, where we now have gleanings of the homosexual atmosphere occuring in many monastaries across the Continent.

We know full well that the Classical world was a place where all sorts of sexual acts were common place, and we know this is also the case in the modern era. It would be wise of us to take the claims of a celibate Medieval period with a grain of salt, considering who is writing about it.

Listen, I don't dispute that what the norm is and has always been.

Unfortunately, too many people cannot conceive that sexual purity is possible and that it does have salutary effects.

Most people do not exercise very regularly, most people are not chaste, but both regimens are certainly possible.

Burrhus
01-19-2007, 12:19 PM
No, Hitler was not celibate. He had sexual intercourse with Eva Braun.

Ahknaton
01-19-2007, 12:25 PM
This is the most ridiculous thread in the history of the Phora, and that's saying quite a bit.
Why thank you!

HrodbertPalatinus
01-24-2007, 01:29 PM
Heydrich was informed about the smallest detail of Hitler's private life. He saw every diagnosis made by Hitler's doctors and knew of all his strange and abnormal inclinations. . . . They showed that Hitler was so ruled by the daemonic forces driving him that he ceased to have thoughts of normal cohabitation with a woman. The ecstasies of power in every form were sufficient for him. - Walter Schellenberg, head of Nazi foreign intelligence (The Schellenberg Memoirs. London: Andre Deutsch. 1956.)

Hitler indeed seemed to have traveled the "Right-hand" path: abstinence from meat, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, the practice of sexual continence, the observance of ethical rules and a concern with purity of every kind (racial, etc.). As Jung and many others have pointed out, Hitler became what one might call a "right-wing sex magician" (the opposite of the decadent deviant Crowleyians), transforming his sexual desire into a tool for higher uses and in attaining superpersonal dominion over himself and the earth... For Edouard Saby, a French writer, the proof of Hitler's status as magician was visible in his "vegetarianism, self-discipline, artistic development and magical gaze and gestures"... Schellenberg confirms in his memoirs Hitler's "powers of intuition and personal magnetism"... Miguel Serrano considered Hitler a Buddha-like tantric warrior-magus...

We know that (besides analogous teachings in orthodox Christianity-"to make oneself a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven", etc.) in the Aryan-Hindu religion, it is taught that if the virya or spiritual manhood is lost or wasted this results in spiritual death and if withheld and conserved leads to life. The modern writer Sivananda Sarasvati explains this teaching: "The seed is dynamic energy which has to be converted into spiritual energy," and "He who seeks divine realization with true zeal should observe strict chastity." As a result of the conservation of virile energy in this way, para-normal powers appear in the aspirant: the creation of a special "magnetic aura", a "personality that inspires a kind of holy awe," and the power of influencing other people by words or a mere look (La Practique de la meditation, Paris, 1950).

In the West, the esoteric-Christian Holy Grail tradition knew the intimate relationship between self-transcendence and outward rulership. Wolfram says about him who passes the test of the Grail: "At this point there is no one in the whole wide world who can excel you in nobility and honor. You are the lord of all creatures. Supreme power will be given unto you." Trevrizent says to Percival: "There is only one thing that the Grail and its secret virtues will never tolerate in you: countless desires." Amfortas fell due to his being wounded in the genitals, i.e., his ontological virility was wounded...

**Lesson for potential World-Shakers: Ascetically transmute the sex drive**

Björn
01-24-2007, 05:39 PM
This exalted celebacy thing is like a weird form of mysticism I have never encountered before. Oh well this IS the Phora after all.:munch:

Mentious
01-24-2007, 07:20 PM
No, its straightforward and standard mysticism. The very heart of it.

Post #24 by HrodbertPalatinus is one of the most well-informed and interesting things I've ever read on the internet.

Yet it is in no way novel or new. It may be unaccustomed to hear it in the shallow modern milleau, yet the knowledge of the impact of continence has long been understood by the better grades of men.

All mysticism is "weird" to modernes, Yet there are things that actually are exhalted.

Helios Panoptes
01-25-2007, 12:10 AM
Hitler indeed seemed to have traveled the "Right-hand" path: abstinence from meat, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, the practice of sexual continence, the observance of ethical rules and a concern with purity of every kind (racial, etc.).

Hitler did not abstain from drugs.

Vasily Zaitsev
01-25-2007, 12:32 AM
Hitler did not abstain from drugs.

Indeed. Didn't he spend much of the war hopped up on goofballs?

HrodbertPalatinus
01-25-2007, 01:23 AM
The "exalted celibacy thing" was the central core of pre-modern religions... We live in an age of malefic deviation and subversion by infra-human forces, and few people have the right-heartedness and sensitivities to understand such matters any longer... If you would like to cleanse your mind of modern confusion, test your intellectual limits by reading Rene Guenon's "The Crisis of the Modern World" and "The Reign of Quantity and The Signs of the Times", the works of Fr. Seraphim Rose, etc...

As to Hitler and drugs, one Theodor Morell, a successful society doctor and (quacky) alternative physician, is largely responsible for the destructive drug treatments, all in response to various physiological conditions and not to any psychological instability on Hitler's part.

As to Hitler in general, I am only illustrating a general point with the subject at hand; Hitler is obviously a spiritual nonentity as compared with any of the mystics, ascetics and saints of the Western and Eastern Orthodox-Catholic Christian Traditions...

Ahknaton
01-25-2007, 01:57 AM
Hitler did not abstain from drugs.
I saw a BBC doco a while ago called "Altered Statesmen" that claimed he was a regular amphetamine user, and that amphetamine mania was responsible for some of his miscalculations on the Eastern Front.

Draco
01-25-2007, 02:06 AM
Indeed. Didn't he spend much of the war hopped up on goofballs?

Amphetamines were commonly prescribed back then for various reasons.

It's my understanding he was also on a primitive anti-Parkinson's disease cocktail brewed up by his doctor.

As for his sexuality, I am in agreement with Kershaw in that he led a normal sexual life, albeit a very private one. Many disproven allegations clearly fueled by jewish psychosexual complexes have been lobbed at him, and subsequently disproven.

Sulla the Dictator
01-25-2007, 02:17 AM
Yet it is in no way novel or new. It may be unaccustomed to hear it in the shallow modern milleau, yet the knowledge of the impact of continence has long been understood by the better grades of men.


Celibacy was regarded as weird in the Classical world, and its regarded as weird now. Now. As in, the age of the greatest breadth and scope of scientific knowledge in human history.

HrodbertPalatinus
01-25-2007, 03:33 AM
Celibacy was regarded as weird in the Classical world, and its regarded as weird now. Now. As in, the age of the greatest breadth and scope of scientific knowledge in human history.

These arrogant myopic cliches of scientistic progressivism do your understanding no good. Where do you think the concept of "Platonic love" came from? In the ancient pre-Christian Indo-European world celibacy was often valued and achieved in members of society who followed a higher philosophical and ascetic calling. In the classical world, the Orphic initiates, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, the perpetually virgin hierodules at the temple of Diana, the Pythia/priestess of Delphi, the Greek Cynics (Diogenes, etc.), the Roman Vestal Virgins, the Roman Stoics, Neoplatonists (Plotinus), etc. all embraced the aristocratic values of ascetic self-denial and sublimated sexuality...

Hartmann von Aue
01-25-2007, 04:46 AM
This exalted celebacy thing is like a weird form of mysticism I have never encountered before. Oh well this IS the Phora after all.:munch:

You've never heard of monasticism before?

Björn
01-25-2007, 05:13 AM
You've never heard of monasticism before?

Yes but they are among the last people alive I would associated with Charisma

Hartmann von Aue
01-25-2007, 05:21 AM
Yes but they are among the last people alive I would associated with Charisma

The monastic tradition has carried on century after century.

No matter how cynical a view you take of monasticism, is it not clear that the concept must have appealed to people who are interested in mysticism?

Your statement that you'd never heard of celibacy as a component of mysticism is patently absurd.

But so is the level of media control of perception in today's world.

Mentious
01-25-2007, 05:26 AM
Celibacy was regarded as weird in the Classical world, and its regarded as weird now.
Drivel. There you go with your "one note history" again. Peoples of classical ages would view your entire life as "weird" no doubt. Far from being viewed as "weird" (and I doubt the word was even in currency), celibacy was the very benchmark of the religious life throughout the entire classical world. You should get out of Vegas now and then.
Now. As in, the age of the greatest breadth and scope of scientific knowledge in human history.
Now, in the most materialistic and alienation-ridden age. The greater the materialism and obsession with the gross outer world, the less the inward realization. Empirical analysis and obsession with the manipulation of inert matter doesn't equate to spiritual knowledge.
Yes but they [monastics] are among the last people alive I would associated with Charisma
I divine you have precious little familiarity with monastics. Otherwise you would not be amazed to hear that many have personal attractiveness, charisma even.

Chaste men, and monastics, do develop charisma. The Hindus call it "tejas," which translates to "effulgence" or "glory." HrodbertPalatinus said it well here:
...in the Aryan-Hindu religion, it is taught that if the virya or spiritual manhood is lost or wasted this results in spiritual death and if withheld and conserved leads to life.

Hartmann von Aue
01-25-2007, 05:59 AM
These people can't be objective about celibacy because they can't be objective about Christianity. This is shown in the manner they confuse the issue of celibacy with Christianity.

If people believed in celibacy for century after century, as far as they are concerned it can only have been because of "superstition."

In their minds it's a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

For century after century.

Non-Christians, even leftist revolutionary groups have practiced celibacy.

But these people will always trust Freud and Kinsey, or any other cretin who proclaims degeneracy to be universal, before they would ever consider the possibility that perhaps they simply lack the capacity to understand the inner lives spiritual men.

Mentious
01-25-2007, 06:07 AM
...or any other cretin who proclaims degeneracy to be universal.
You're talking about Sulla I suppose. :p Uniform degeneracy in every time and clime appears to be his creed.

It seems to me that people of the past had much better powers of observation, whether of human nature and psychology, or the natural world. Today you can find many adolescents who don't even know how to find West at 3 PM, much less how to read the night sky or analyze the needs of a garden. You find little girls who don't know what to do with a baby, etc.
... before they would ever consider the possibility that perhaps they simply lack the capacity to understand the inner lives spiritual men.
Or even their own spiritual lives. Modernes are so distracted and externalized now that some men don't even cognize the inner psychological and spiritual changes attendent upon sexual loss. I believe that moral loss actually puts blindness over a man's eyes and sinks him to a place where he can't see the obvious.

Hartmann von Aue
01-25-2007, 06:26 AM
Here's an example of the corruption of scholarship:

The term amor platonicus was coined as early as the 15th Century by the Florentine scholar Marsilio Ficino as a synonym for amor socraticus. Both expressions signify a love focused on the beauty of a person's character and intelligence rather than on their physical charms. They refer to the special bond of affection between two men Plato had highlighted in a dialogue, and exemplified by the affection between Socrates and his young male pupils, in particular to the one between Socrates and Alcibiades.

The English term dates back as far as Sir William Davenant's Platonic Lovers (1636). It is derived from the concept in Plato's Symposium of the love of the idea of good which lies at the root of all virtue and truth.

Paradox

Ironically, the very eponym of this love, Plato, as well as the forementioned Socrates and Ficino, all belonged to the community of men who desire boys, and they all engaged in erotic pedagogic friendships with youths. The concept of platonic love thus arose within the context of the debate pitting mundane sexually expressed pederasty against the philosophic – or chaste – pederasty elaborated in Plato's writings (Symposium, Phaedro, Laws, and others).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love

How the hell can there be such a thing as "chaste pederasty?"

Socrates is represented among a bunch of Hellenic homosexuals as the one who refrains from the act, but because the modern cretin cannot consider the possibility that Socrates is trying to teach restraint, he must invent the concept of "chaste pederasty."

WTF?

Blaise Pascal said:

The example of Alexander's chastity has not made so many continent as that of his drunkenness has made intemperate

Now was the suggestion being made that Alexander was perpetually celibate? Of course not. Rather, the power of refraining from sex was understood.

As it is understood in Caesar and Tacitus.

Those who have remained chaste for the longest
time, receive the greatest commendation among their people: they think
that by this the growth is promoted, by this the physical powers are
increased and the sinews are strengthened. And to have had knowledge of
a woman before the twentieth year they reckon among the most disgraceful
acts -Caesar

The young men marry late, and their vigour is thus unimpaired.

-Tacitus

In the old days even libertines could admit the virtue of chastity.

The ideological compulsion to deny that there is any benefit or even the possibility of chastity, is an integral component of the "Big Lie."

Mentious
01-25-2007, 06:35 AM
I am an hundred percent with you. Beautiful quotations and references. I had not heard about the chaste tendencies of Alexander the Great, but that completely makes sense. I just saw a bit on him last night on the Discovery Channel, about his successful siege of an island as part of conquering Persia. The narrative stated that Alexander would not ask anything of his men that he himself did not do, and that he was known for dangerous acts of courage when he was young. Sounds like a chaste dude to me.

The homosexual fetish has apparently invaded the Wikipedian brain.
The ideological compulsion to deny that there is any benefit or even the possibility of chastity, is an integral component of the "Big Lie."
The "Big Lie" is there to keep men weak.

Libido Dominandi
Sexual Liberation and Political Control
http://www.staugustine.net/libido%20dominandi.html

Hartmann von Aue
01-25-2007, 06:40 AM
Well, Julian, unfortunately, I've been a failure in this department.

But I have had , from time to time, a modicum of success.

Some of things one might notice:

1) the capacity for inner joy without reference to sex.

2) greatly improved mental and physical condition.

3) One notices that girls are staring and smiling at you, or accidentally "bumping" into you, for no apparent reason.

4) a greater appreciation for music, (one can listen to music with a kind of exhilaration that is quite different from the ordinary experience), a healthier sense of disgust, i.e. one is no longer as numb to the gross content of the popular "culture."

Anyway, as you say, the only way a person is going to find out is to try it.

There are not going to be any scientifically controlled studies with objectively measurable results, because either the control will fail, or the the results will be considered too subjective.

And even if there was "scientific proof," odds are it will not be believed.

Mentious
01-25-2007, 06:42 AM
I have found all of the same to be true, and more. He who makes an effort is no failure. It's the effort! According to Indian lore, God-as-Shiva is the King of Ascetics, and it states: "Shiva is the God who is easily pleased."

1) the capacity for inner joy without reference to sex.
Definitely!
2) greatly improved mental and physical condition.
This is the most immediate effect that many men attest to. Mental and physical stamina develop, and emotional resilience. Physically, I obliterated a very debilitating lung illness (that started in my teens) by conserving my creative essence. I still work long days with little food. For many years now I have not even eaten until after 4 PM, and then only moderately. Yet at 50 I've been the estate gardener on a 5-acre landscaped estate the past year (in my spare time, I volunteered to do it because I am interested in gardening). All the while keeping up a full-time lucrative profession, dealing with the lives of four daughters, and even arguing with callow youths on Phora who spout nonsense. I am almost never sick, and when I am, only following upon the Great Disaster. And I was just a mediocre and wavering attainer of chastity.
3) One notices that girls are staring and smiling at you, or accidentally "bumping" into you, for no apparent reason.
I hear this one all the time. It's a real kick for these men. Very common for young men increasing their chastity. There's an expression about the state before birth, "When I was just a twinkle in my daddy's eye." Well, that's the twinkle. The twinkle is the light of intelligence resident in the conserved "shakti," plus the sexual charge and magnetism that chastity brings. That is utterly logical. Women see that "twinkle," shine, and virility in you. Chastity increases virility. (As with Alexander the Great.)
4) a greater appreciation for music, (one can listen to music with a kind of exhilaration that is quite different from the ordinary experience), a healthier sense of disgust, i.e. one is no longer as numb to the gross content of the popular "culture."
I have actually had the same experience. I find myself moved and actually flabbergasted by some symphonies and composers, like recently, "Lark Ascending" by Vaugn Williams. Couldn't "grasp" the stuff before.

There is much more! Much more!
...as you say, the only way a person is going to find out is to try it.
Yes, it doesn't kill a man to "try it and see," to experiment. He's tried everything else.
There are not going to be any scientifically controlled studies with objectively measurable results, because either the control will fail, or the the results will be considered too subjective. And even if there was "scientific proof," odds are it will not be believed.
Frankly, the unworthy are not allowed to know. A faithless scientist, or just one without respect, can't know these things. Blinders will always be over his eyes. That is my view. Also, the whole world is actually subjective in the first place, which even physicists have sometimes gleaned. Chastity helps a man to understand this, because the outer world itself, the world he experiences, begins to become altered as he builds up The Beauty within himself, and he leaves his "inner ground" more and more undisturbed. Outer world disturbances, subsequent to sex discharge, are in my opinion the essence of "The Fall" going on continuously.

HrodbertPalatinus
01-25-2007, 06:52 AM
The Wikipedians are nothing but vile cultural subversionists. Plato, the supposed prophet of sodomite pederasty, not only explicitly outlawed sexual relations with boys (The Republic, III, 12, 403b-c) but unambiguously condemned ALL expressions of homosexual decadence in his Laws VIII, 5-8, 836c-842a:

"[Athenian Stranger] But how can we take precautions against the unnatural loves of either sex, from which innumerable evils have come upon individuals and cities? How shall we devise a remedy and way of escape out of so great a danger? ... For if any one following nature should lay down the law which existed before the days of Laius, and denounce these lusts as contrary to nature, adducing the animals as a proof that such unions were monstrous, he might prove his point, but he would be wholly at variance with the custom of your states [i.e. the decadent bastardized Hellenic states Plato hoped to repurify]. Further, they are repugnant to a principle which we say that a legislator should always observe; for we are always enquiring which of our enactments tends to virtue and which not. And suppose we grant that these loves are accounted by law to be honourable, or at least not disgraceful, in what degree will they contribute to virtue? Will such passions implant in the soul of him who is seduced the habit of courage, or in the soul of the seducer the principle of temperance? Who will ever believe this?-or rather, who will not blame the effeminacy of him who yields to pleasures and is unable to hold out against them? Will not all men censure as womanly him who imitates the woman? And who would ever think of establishing such a practice by law? Certainly no one who had in his mind the image of true law.

[...]

The principle of piety, the love of honour, and the desire of beauty, not in the body but in the soul. These are, perhaps, romantic aspirations; but they are the noblest of aspirations, if they could only be realized in all states, and, God willing, in the matter of love we may be able to enforce one of two things-either that no one shall venture to touch any person of the freeborn or noble class except his wedded wife, or sow the unconsecrated and bastard seed among harlots, or in barren and unnatural lusts; or at least we may abolish altogether the connection of men with men; and as to women, if any man has to do with any but those who come into his house duly married by sacred rites, whether they be bought or acquired in any other way, and he offends publicly in the face of all mankind, we shall be right in enacting that he be deprived of civic honours and privileges, and be deemed to be, as he truly is, a stranger. Let this law, then, whether it is one, or ought rather to be called two, be laid down respecting love in general, and the intercourse of the sexes which arises out of the desires, whether rightly or wrongly indulged."

Mentious
01-25-2007, 06:59 AM
You deserve an hundred Reps and more. Great posts, great knowledge. Many men around the world will thank you for your scholarship.
http://julianlee.com/images/ShivaSaddhu.jpg

Björn
01-25-2007, 07:29 AM
Surely you see a downside to celebacy? Like extermination of one's own bloodline? Supression creates desire anyhow. A boat can sink in water but without water it cannot float either. There's plenty of time for vegetarianism and celebacy in the grave.

Here's a hymn from the book of Bozo Porno Circus (band) called Skintaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLCM5nxxBPA

If that aint Charisma I don't know what is.:crusader:

Mentious
01-25-2007, 07:38 AM
Surely you see a downside to celebacy? Like extermination of one's own bloodline?...There's plenty of time for vegetarianism and celebacy in the grave.
No, there is plenty of time for celibacy after you've had a few children.

Even if you are highly chaste and lapse but once yearly for ten years, you could still get ten children. I see you are furrowing your brow about the propagation of the race. Well, how many kids do you have, oh great Patriarch of Pregnant Plentitude? My bloodline's on a good footing.

The idea is to be chaste until you have a good wife, and the skills, energy, and wealth to support her, see? Then you should have as many children as you can, 3-5 is a good number. After having children, then practice chastity again as much as possible. That life force is then needed for the time, attention, and material support of the children, see?

Again, since you are so concerned with procreation, how many children have you created so far?

I have four. And they have all relied on me for a long time. So has my celibacy interfered with my procreation? Or has your indulgence interfered with yours? Men who sexually abuse themselves don't even have motivation to marry; women are no longer magically alluring to them, inspiring sacrifice in him. Marriage is no longer an abode of secrets for the sex indulger. There is no carrot on the stick. And they have less of the life force and resilience needed to found a family.

http://julianlee.com/images/athomeJL3DaughtersChair.jpg

Every fool I ever hear rattling on about "the birthrate" when confronted with the celibacy ideal either has no children, or doesn't want any. Then of those who do want them, probably only half will manage to ever do it. The truth is, the men most inclined to continence in their lives are usually the ones with the most children. Men who've had some children are naturally attracted to chastity ideals because 1) Sex for them has already served it's purpose, and 2) They require greater energy and power to cope with family life. Young single men can understand chastity ideals too, and they gain even more from it.

Those who support masturbation and womanizing Las-Vagas style usually are barren of children, and the very thought of them overwhelms them. Even should they procreate, if they keep being sexaholics they make desultory fathers.

Now look at whole nations: Countries with a strict moral code and a chastity ideal tend to have high birthrates. (Asian countries can be cited, as well as traditional Europe when the Catholic Church was strong.) Wherever there is a strong celibate clergy there is a high birthrate. On the other hand, countries with the lax modern morality have low birth rates (the modern U.S. and Europe). So you are blowing smoke.
Supression creates desire anyhow.
Sufferin' Shibboleth! That must mean that since you don't "suppress," you no longer have desire, right? Isn't that the way it would work then? (Yuck, Yuck.) No, you have it utterly backwards. Indulgence inflames desire; the effort to control desire produces, guess what? Control of Desire. As one yogic adept said about sex: "Ever fed, never satisfied. Never fed, ever satisfied." Dummies and dabblers merely "suppress." Masters of chastity sublimate and transform the energy into countless directions.
There's plenty of time for vegetarianism and celebacy in the grave.
But in that place it does you no good. Chastity has no value, purpose, or impact "in the grave." Only here. It's not the "life of the grave" that we are seeking to master, but this life.

Sulla the Dictator
01-25-2007, 09:19 AM
Drivel. There you go with your "one note history" again.


You seem to resent my detailed understanding of human history. I forgive you your spite.


Peoples of classical ages would view your entire life as "weird" no doubt.


Oh, this is certainly true. They would consider me a complete prude. They would think that my sexual habits are almost puritanical.

They would think YOU were so foreign as to be their equivalent of an alien.


Far from being viewed as "weird" (and I doubt the word was even in currency), celibacy was the very benchmark of the religious life throughout the entire classical world.


Oh yes. Such as the sexual rites done by the priestesses of Aphrodite, or the Bacchanals, or the celebrations of Dionysus. CHASTE affairs. I'm afraid the Classical world would terrify you, Julian, for all the oddest reasons.


You should get out of Vegas now and then.


I travel often.


Now, in the most materialistic and alienation-ridden age. The greater the materialism and obsession with the gross outer world, the less the inward realization.


I'll take Science over mysticism for a thousand, Alex.

I see much talk of Socrates. It is true, that Socrates considered chastity to be a high virtue. But he does not make a harsh judgement about homosexuality in the least, and his view of celibacy is neutral as to gender. When Socrates resisted Alcibiades attempt to seduce him, even Socrates would admit:

From our part, the love I feel for Alcibiades has brought me to an experience which is exactly the same as that of the Bacchantes, who when they are inspired can draw milk and honey where others could not even draw water from a well. Similarly I myself, although I have not learned anything which I could transmit to somebody else in order to make him good, nevertheless feel that by virtue of my love, my company could have made him become better.

You can't throw a rock at Greek literature without hitting some homoerotic poem or text.

Sulla the Dictator
01-25-2007, 09:38 AM
I delight in the prime of a boy of twelve, but one of thirteen is much more desirable. He who is fourteen is a still sweeter flower of the Loves, and one who is just beginning his fifteenth year is yet more delightful. The sixteenth year is that of the gods, and as for the seventeenth it is not for me, but for Zeus, to seek it. But if one has a desire for those still older, he no longer plays, but now seeks 'And answering him back'.

--The Greek Anthology, XII

HrodbertPalatinus
01-25-2007, 11:23 AM
Hello, 'Sulla', it is obvious that you are not interested in true human communication. You do not thoughtfully digest what informed, intelligent people have to say, and would rather stay confined in your immature impishness and self-limiting modernist hubris. First you mendaciously suggest that celibate and ascetic values were alien to the classical world, and I provide a long list of classical religious figures and philosophers to refute this absurdity; still unacknowledging your initial ignorance, now you are on another argument, consciously or unconsciously, supportive of the erosion of civilized mores in the West... So, in conclusion, unless you improve your personality and become more mature, instead of relying on this superficial, impish, hubristic persona, your posts will not be taken account of.

By the way, authentic religion is just a form of higher science, and the best modern physicists recognized this. See Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Greatest Physicists, wherein you will find elaborated the highly mystical and anti-materialist worldviews of Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington.

Ambrosio Spinola
01-25-2007, 11:43 AM
Please guys avoid making this personal.

I personally do not see classical antiquity as some sort of Sodom and Gomorah. There were surely debased figures amongst them but the point alone that most texts written at that time would use such outrages as examples of what was wrong is all telling. No one was upholding Agripinilla as some sort of role model, nor did that work with Tiberius, Caligula and the rest of deviant personalities. The bachanales were in fact forbidden under penalty of death.

That they viewed sexuality differently is no reason to make a 2007 porn movie out of it.

Mentious
01-25-2007, 04:43 PM
I'll take science over mysticism for a thousand, Alex.
Bad bargain. Inward realization gives satisfaction, whereas fiddling endlessly with inert matter gives no satisfaction.

Mysticism gives a front row seat on the secrets of material creation. Scientists sit in the back rows.

Mysticism brings human contentment while scientists remain eternally discontent and stupified. They never touch the basic problem they try to address, which is duality and its "troubles." They are like a dog who chases it's tail, never realizing that the "trouble" they seek to nail down arises with them. Meanwhile, like clumsy louts they end up damaging the very material nature with which they are obsessed. Scientists are a very sorry bunch.

Only the mystic is able to give meaning to the scientist's fruitless outing, because only the mystic finds the real source of human joy (which is the scientist's true motive), as well as the root of nature itself.

Mystics works with the proposition that the outer aises from the inner, from consciousness. Given that the proposition be true, they necessarily end up riding herd over material scientists, because Mystics are the Scientists of Consciousness and the Explorers of the Inner.

To the mystic, the material scientist is just like an endearing schoolboy.

Capitalize Mysticism. Lower case "science" for sure.

Mentious
01-25-2007, 05:21 PM
As to Sulla's confusion about the past: It is obvious that celibacy dharma and lore arose with the ancient peoples, rather than in 1973 or in Popular Science magazine. One can always find decadent periods and peoples. That is just as obvious. But the surviving ancient literature on the celibacy/continence is ample compared to any similar positive literature from modern times, so we have to accept that roots of chastity ideals exist from ancient times.

If Sulla wants to disparage and minimize chastity ideals among older peoples and religions, it must be for the same motive for which he disparages and mimimizes those ideals in present time as well.
That they viewed sexuality differently is no reason to make a 2007 porn movie out of it.
Sulla has a way of making the whole world, past, present and future, into a "porn movie."

It's like the Yoga-Vasistha said, the world becomes for you whatever you want it to be. Even history.

Hermetic
01-25-2007, 05:35 PM
Interesting you healed your lung problem in such a manner did you also make any changes in your personal life besides celibacy to help reslove this issue?

I have cured myself of different aliments and others of theirs without being a celibate but I do honestly find this interesting.

delete
01-25-2007, 05:49 PM
Interesting you healed your lung problem in such a manner did you also make any changes in your personal life besides celibacy to help reslove this issue?

I have cured myself of different aliments and others of theirs without being a celibate but I do honestly find this interesting.

I have cured myself with the good old Norwegian male method of ignoring the ailments, until it goes away. I have never eaten anti-biotics so it must be efficient.

The Grandfather of a friend of mine tried to ignore away a heart attack for three days, but he died in the end, so the method does not always work.

Sulla the Dictator
01-25-2007, 06:43 PM
I personally do not see classical antiquity as some sort of Sodom and Gomorah.


Neither do I. But lets put it this way, the ancients were far more sexual than we are today.


There were surely debased figures amongst them but the point alone that most texts written at that time would use such outrages as examples of what was wrong is all telling. No one was upholding Agripinilla as some sort of role model, nor did that work with Tiberius, Caligula and the rest of deviant personalities. The bachanales were in fact forbidden under penalty of death.


Those were EXTREME cases of debauchery, and remembered as such, sure. But with our modern quasi Victorian view of sexuality, most Romans and Greeks were debauched by our standards. The Greeks had a low opinion of women and no legal institution for homosexual bonding, which is about as potent an environment for promiscuity as it gets. The Romans considered sexual service to be part of the job description for female slaves, and beyond that whores were available in the archways of sporting arenas for the lower classes who could not afford slaves of that calibur.

One of these celibacy guys was waving around Caesar's name earlier. Caesar rutted his way through a chunk of Roman women, by the accounts which we have available TODAY. Given the impression left by some of these accounts, that wasn't even the half of it. Married three times, affairs with Servilia and Cleopatra, and doubtless he seduced many other women.


That they viewed sexuality differently is no reason to make a 2007 porn movie out of it.

It isn't pornographic. Its just free of puritanical Medievalism. :p

tempus fugit
01-25-2007, 07:06 PM
Perhaps there is a scientific basis for the benefits of celibacy?

Mentious
01-25-2007, 08:26 PM
Its just free of puritanical Medievalism.
Purity will always be a positive and "under good regulation." (To use the phrase of Mr. Darcy.) "Puritanical" scarcely exists except in the minds of those who tremble at any idea of purity. The only "tanical" we see now are these 'tanicals': We are in a dirtytanical age, a lustitanical, pornitanical, and masturbitanical age. A far more disgusting age than anything Medieval.

Sulla the Dictator
01-25-2007, 08:53 PM
Purity will always be a positive and "under good regulation."


Well thats great Julian. I'm fine with your opinion of purity. Just remember that its your wishful thinking and not based in historical fact. Considering your hang ups on sexuality, you would find modern Amsterdam to be preferable to the Classical world.

Sulla the Dictator
01-25-2007, 09:09 PM
Greece is an excellent case of how and why the ancients were not celibates. The Greek practice of paides resulted in youthful boys being discarded after they hit seventeen. Which means that partners were often discarded and replaced; outside of marriage.

And as we know, homosexuality is anti-celibacy. There is NO reason to engage in homosexual conduct other than physical gratification.

Here's a particularly rancid piece of Greek thought on the matter:

In a maid there is no question of a real sphincter nor a simple kiss, no natural nice smell of the skin, nor of that sweet sexy talk or limpid lok. Besides, when she's being taught she's worse. And they're all cold behind; but a greater nuissance is this -- there's no place where you can put your wandering hand.

--Strato, Greek Anthology

Mentious
01-26-2007, 12:38 AM
Just remember that its your wishful thinking and not based in historical fact.
I'd say it's your wishful thinking that the all of human history is one Las Vegas casino. You skew the "facts" by focusing on the worst moments in a vast stretch of time that flows past many places and peoples, some not even known. Also keep in mind that "established facts" of history have a tendency to change on us regularly as new "facts" emerge. Or their meaning gets re-interpreted, or history gets outright "corrected," or you discover other places and periods you'd not studied before. "Christopher Columbus discovered America" is one such "fact" subject to revision in my lifetime. And is the "Classical World" one little spot in time? One year? You always grossly oversimplify a vast human history and focus on what you list.
Considering your hang ups on sexuality...
Who has sex hangups? The sex addict, obviously. And since it fucks up one's life drastically, it's a genuine "hang up," i.e. it "hangs you up" and blight's a man's progress. I spent years overcoming sex hangups, and my goal is to help a few young men avoid getting badly hung up. I pull big Cats out of trees. You should try it, too.
I'm fine with your opinion of purity.
That's a surprise. You spend all your time cherry-picking rot-pots from history in an apparent attempt to invalidate higher ideals by establishing those rot-pots as some kind of universal mean and constant. So that is very confusing. But I do insist that purity of sugar, organic broccoli, and purity of cocaine are not the instances in which the idea of purity has its highest value.

Helios Panoptes
01-26-2007, 12:45 AM
You gentlemen should post historical documentation of sexual practices in the Classical world. That could help to resolve this, though I do have my doubts.

Hartmann von Aue
01-26-2007, 01:08 AM
Perhaps there is a scientific basis for the benefits of celibacy?

When a person realizes that "science" as it exists in the popular consciousness has little to do with understanding nature, and a great deal more to do with conditioning people to accept certain policies, perhaps he will be more willing to judge such matters for himself.

My own theory is that a lack of sexual stimulation acts in a similar way to lifting heavy weights.

The muscles respond to heavy weight by becoming larger, stronger, and better coordinated.

In the same way the neuro-endocrine system reacts to the lack of sexual stimulation by improving the virility and and mental acuity of the person practicing celibacy.

Anyway, before the "scientific" Freudians and Kinseyans came along, there were many people who understood the truth of the matter.

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles08/marriage-1.shtml

Even today, when packaged as "sex therapy" there are people who have their own ideas on the matter:

actionlove.com

Mentious
01-26-2007, 01:13 AM
Beautiful post. Especially the first paragraph. Salutations. :beerchug:

bardamu
01-26-2007, 01:15 AM
Celibacy was regarded as weird in the Classical world, and its regarded as weird now. Now. As in, the age of the greatest breadth and scope of scientific knowledge in human history.

Vestal virgins were not considered "weird". I would think that a celibate priesthood was the norm rather than the exception in Classical times. Certainly the Delphic Oracle was a celibate institution during the golden age of Greece.

Keystone
01-26-2007, 02:28 AM
Vestal virgins were not considered "weird". I would think that a celibate priesthood was the norm rather than the exception in Classical times. Certainly the Delphic Oracle was a celibate institution during the golden age of Greece.
Another one catches Julian fever.:whip:

Let's all be celibate for the sake of race and culture!

Don't you guys have sex much?

Helios Panoptes
01-26-2007, 07:00 AM
When a person realizes that "science" as it exists in the popular consciousness has little to do with understanding nature, and a great deal more to do with conditioning people to accept certain policies, perhaps he will be more willing to judge such matters for himself.

You have overstated the case. While it is true that science does not occur in a vacuum and social factors help to set its parameters, it is not true that science has little to do with understanding nature, and a great deal more to do with conditioning people to accept certain policies. Science is hindered by PC constraints, which, for instance, impede intelligence research, but nevertheless, most research is directed towards understanding phenomena. There has been plenty of research breaking through about gender differences, racial differences, and sexual behavior which is not amenable to the status quo's dogmas. That wouldn't happen if it had as little to do with understanding and as much with conditioning as you imply.

tempus fugit
01-26-2007, 11:29 AM
When a person realizes that "science" as it exists in the popular consciousness has little to do with understanding nature, and a great deal more to do with conditioning people to accept certain policies, perhaps he will be more willing to judge such matters for himself.

My own theory is that a lack of sexual stimulation acts in a similar way to lifting heavy weights.

The muscles respond to heavy weight by becoming larger, stronger, and better coordinated.

In the same way the neuro-endocrine system reacts to the lack of sexual stimulation by improving the virility and and mental acuity of the person practicing celibacy.

Anyway, before the "scientific" Freudians and Kinseyans came along, there were many people who understood the truth of the matter.

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles08/marriage-1.shtml

Even today, when packaged as "sex therapy" there are people who have their own ideas on the matter:

actionlove.com

So.....if we should find scientific evidence that celibacy does in fact have significant individual (and perhaps racial) benefits, shall we throw it out?

Don Quixote
01-26-2007, 11:59 AM
Beautiful post. Especially the first paragraph. Salutations. :beerchug:I can't help but notice the extreme irony of the fact that it is the forum patriarchs who tend to line up on your side of this debate, whilst it is the childless young men who protest so loudly. Bunch of wankers! :p

Mentious
01-26-2007, 04:45 PM
So.....if we should find scientific evidence that celibacy does in fact have significant individual (and perhaps racial) benefits, shall we throw it out?
No, because it would provide additional testimony for those who require that kind of validation. I think the point is that it's not always wise to wait for scientists to validate truth. Then when they occasionally get lucky and do so, you can expect them to change their tune again later. They are like the fashion industry, basically, serving human notions, desire, and zeitgeist. Professional science has misled human beings often in the past, and still does so today. The history of science is full of pronouncements and "oopsies" we consider outrageous or absurd today. In fact, much of science is devoted to trying to clean up the messes that scientific depredation itself created. (Such as trying to cure leukemia after scientists create the toxic chemicals and environment that creates it; creating cell phones because nobody's secure walking around their own damned town anymore, and they don't know their own neighbors now, because of other scientific creations, etc. etc.) When it comes to improving human life, science is the naked king. He's stutting through town without a lick of clothes on him. Their only true accomplishment is to rearrange Duality (the good/bad, the troubles/pleasantries) into more and more bizarre arrangements. They never alter the fact of duality by one iota, but only change it into more insidious forms.

Scientists deal in smallish factoids, not in wisdom. Smallish factoids can always be arranged and re-arranged into any picture that suits you. They serve the desires of society, no matter whether the society is wise or not. Scientists generally function as fashion journalists, corporate propagandists, and recounters of their own subjective blind spots.

The fact that "science" per se has no inherent moral conscience is also well demonstrated. A scientist often doesn't care 2 cents about the social and cultural consequences, the ecological consequences, or the moral consequences of what he does. As a typical human being he cares about fame, money, a grant, or whether he'll impress the chick. They are often full of egotism and self-absorption. Then he crashes headlong like mayhem against cultural order and nature itself, beneath the the mantle of pseudo-sanctity that a lost world lends him. From the point of view of Nature, scientists regularly play the role of juvenile delinquent vandals.

A wise man takes what the scientist reports with some interest, but doesn't allow himself to be regulated by them. Be your own best scientist.

Helios Panoptes
01-26-2007, 06:10 PM
There is a tendency on the part of the forum's "mystics" to move beyond the obvious truth that science is sometimes inaccurate to that it is a worthless propaganda machine. For such an utter failure, I could type from now until next week listing the real world dividends paid by physics, chemistry, biology, et cetera. It would be quite a miracle if scientists were able to launch objects into space, not because they had a good model, but because their propaganda got lucky.

Mentious
01-26-2007, 07:30 PM
There is plenty of worshipful kneeling going on here by the Church of Science. Why not have a little diversity of opinion, Helios? Sorry I'm a heretic.

I only propagate new alternative thoughts to combat the Scientistic propaganda machine, after all. ("We are saving the world. This is 'progress.' We will eliminate suffering and troubles, etc.) Takes a load of faith to stay in that church.
Your scientists often fail to demonstrate much to you conclusively of value, so why not occasionally question those Gurus?

Mystics are a different kind of scientist, actually. More rigorous, they only credit what they can personally experience and know to be true. And they are much more interesting. :)

Helios Panoptes
01-26-2007, 07:41 PM
I take a moderate position on this topic. I do not believe "scientists are always right" or any similiarly ridiculous statement. With that said, there is much evidence that they are often right. So you see, I am not a member of any church. My view is not dogmatic.

Sulla the Dictator
01-26-2007, 08:08 PM
Mystics are a different kind of scientist, actually.


Yeah, such a different type as to be completely unrelated to scientists at all.


More rigorous, they only credit what they can personally experience and know to be true. And they are much more interesting. :)

They're usually charlatans looking to get in your wallet.

Sulla the Dictator
01-26-2007, 08:21 PM
I'd say it's your wishful thinking that the all of human history is one Las Vegas casino.


Human history is actually a lot more sordid than a Vegas casino, Julian.


You skew the "facts" by focusing on the worst moments in a vast stretch of time that flows past many places and peoples, some not even known.


Known by me. My familiarity with the topic is what leads me to disagree with you. And what 'worst moments'? Pederasty, not just homosexuality, was rife in Greek civilization. There is no "brief time" of pederasty, its an ongoing affair. Were the Greeks presiding over a dark age?

Rome was filled with more heterosexual coitus, but none the less it was FILLED with heterosexual coitus (And the other variety to a lesser extent). Was the Roman Republic a dark age?


Also keep in mind that "established facts" of history have a tendency to change on us regularly as new "facts" emerge. Or their meaning gets re-interpreted, or history gets outright "corrected," or you discover other periods of history you'd not studied before.


Yeah, but not in this case. The texts aren't going to change. The giant stone phalluses aren't going to be reinterpreted as space ships. The pornographic frescos and mosaics aren't going to be reinterpreted as instruction guides.


"Christophoer Columbus discovered America" is just one "fact" that's been subject to revision in my life.


The equivalent to what you're suggesting would be a 'revision' that said "Christopher Columbus NEVER ARRIVED in the Americas."


And is the "Classical World" one little spot in time? One year? You always grossly oversimplify a vast human history and focus on what you list.


No, I'm telling you what happened in this world, and you don't like it. So now we're talking about some nebulous 'possible discovery' which will change everything we know about the Classical world. I don't know how to view history that way. I'm a traditionalist who thinks that the actual texts and evidence is important for our understanding of periods.


Who has sex hangups? The sex addict, obviously. And since it fucks up one's life drastically, it's a genuine "hang up," i.e. it "hangs you up" and blight's a man's progress. I spent years overcoming sex hangups, and my goal is to help a few young men avoid getting badly hung up. I pull big Cats out of trees. You should try it, too.


My point is that if you find yourself so saddened by the modern world, the Classical one would shock and depress you.


That's a surprise. You spend all your time cherry-picking rot-pots from history in an apparent attempt to invalidate higher ideals by establishing those rot-pots as some kind of universal mean and constant.


LOL You talk about Socrates and then you claim *I* am portraying exceptions as the rule? :rofl:

I'm afraid the 'rot pots' you're referring to are the Joe Winejug of the Classical age. They reflect the views of the upper class quite specifically, and the views of the wider populace generally.


So that is very confusing.


I don't agree with your idea of 'purity', which I think is madness more or less. I'm just ok with you BELIEVING in it as long as you don't try and pass your belief off as being rooted in the historical period I'm talking about.

Mentious
01-26-2007, 08:57 PM
What tedium.
They're usually charlatans looking to get in your wallet.
Scientists are the slaves and chattel of men who want into your wallet. The money men crack the whip, and the scientist runs and barks. Most of of science is clearly devoted to making more bucks for money men. That is obvious as the sun at noonday.

Mystics want to spread knowledge of what leads to true contentment. By their very definition they have little worldly interest or motive. Most of them don't present themselves to the public. When they do it's with a helpful motive. But you've probably never even been within 100 miles of a genuine mystic anyway.

Hermetic
01-26-2007, 08:58 PM
That could be a reflection of stages of life, older men are more aimed toward celibacy for long periods then a younger man.

I can't help but notice the extreme irony of the fact that it is the forum patriarchs who tend to line up on your side of this debate, whilst it is the childless young men who protest so loudly. Bunch of wankers! :p

Hermetic
01-26-2007, 09:00 PM
Replace scientists with minister and you have religion.

Scientists are the slaves and chattel of men who want into your wallet. The money men crack the whip, and the scientist runs and barks. Most of of scientist is clearly devoted to making more bucks for money men. That is obvious as the sun at noonday.

Der Sozialist
01-26-2007, 09:14 PM
What tedium.

Scientists are the slaves and chattel of men who want into your wallet. The money men crack the whip, and the scientist runs and barks. Most of of science is clearly devoted to making more bucks for money men. That is obvious as the sun at noonday.

This is a ridiculous statement. If I wanted to earn money, I would not pursue a Physics and Mathematics degree and instead head directly into some other more appropriate field—like business or medicine.

Most scientists, unless they win some major prize (like the Nobel Prize) with a large sum of money attached to it, remain middle class for all of their existence—even the ones with tenure at prestigious Ivy league institutions.

The fact of the matter is, Sulla earns more money than most scientists—most scientists could very well pursue other careers outside academia and earn much more money but they do not because their main motivation is not money.

Mentious
01-26-2007, 09:25 PM
This is a ridiculous statement. If I wanted to earn money, I would not pursue a Physics and Mathematics degree and instead head directly into some other more appropriate field—like business or medicine. Most scientists, unless they win some major prize (like the Nobel Prize) with a large sum of money attached to it, remain middle class for all of their existence—even the ones with tenure at prestigious Ivy league institutions. The fact of the matter is, Sulla earns more money than most scientists—most scientists could very well pursue other careers outside academia and earn much more money but they do not because their main motivation is not money.

What's ridiculous? You're reading things in. I did not say anything about the original motives of some scientists, nor did I say they are big money makers. I stated that most scientists are hired and paid by business interests; most end up serving money interests. It's irrelevant if their pay is not that of a real estate agent.

Their original motive may not have been to make money, but that is largely how these hapless empiricists get used. I gather that most work in the service of commerce as contrasted to "pure science." Then any that try to pursue "pure science" are soon courted by industry and their discoveries turned to financial gain. (Genetic research, GenTech, etc. are just recent obvious examples.) All of their discoveries are soon turned to the interests of somebody's power or profit.

That scientists serve as the handmaidens of business is true as the sun at noon, and not at all a ridiculous statement.

Then it follows that we can't look to scientists for our values, ultimate guidance, wisdom, or even human honesty.

Hartmann von Aue
01-26-2007, 09:28 PM
You have overstated the case. While it is true that science does not occur in a vacuum and social factors help to set its parameters, it is not true that science has little to do with understanding nature, and a great deal more to do with conditioning people to accept certain policies. Science is hindered by PC constraints, which, for instance, impede intelligence research, but nevertheless, most research is directed towards understanding phenomena. There has been plenty of research breaking through about gender differences, racial differences, and sexual behavior which is not amenable to the status quo's dogmas. That wouldn't happen if it had as little to do with understanding and as much with conditioning as you imply.

I said "in the popular consciousness"

What I mean is that the science of Nova programs or Cosmos or of global warming, or of the latest dietetic theory, are not really teaching science, because science requires a capacity for understanding the theory and the method of verification. What they are teaching is a kind of dogma which claims to be based on science, that is consonant with a "liberal" worldview.

Today people like Freud and Kinsey have been exposed.

In the future, perhaps some discredit will fall (when it is no longer a political necessity to defend their views) on some other loudmouths out there who are raised to the level of public figures not for their scientific merit, but because of the political application of their "scientific" views.

Mentious
01-26-2007, 09:49 PM
Replace scientist with minister and you have religion.
Replace minister with scientist and you have religion, today's most popular religion.

Der Sozialist
01-26-2007, 10:01 PM
I stated that most scientists are hired and paid by business interests;
Most scientists are paid by an University—only a minority work for firms like GenTech or Pharmaceutical companies—most research and innovation occurs from Universities (at least outside the realm of medicine or pharmaceuticals for example).

Then any that try to pursue "pure science" are soon courted by industry and their discoveries turned to financial gain. (Genetic research, GenTech, etc. are just recent obvious examples.) All of their discoveries are soon turned to the interests of somebody's power or profit.

These are isolated examples—for example, most scientists see very little in terms of money from discoveries (unless a prize is attached) as well as the University itself—besides attracting prestige and thus more applicants, I cannot see how some Universities financially benefit from certain advances in mathematics and Physics even though money is thrown at these endeavors.

For example, there is a fund of $1 million dollars for the first accurate proof of the Riemann-Zeta hypothesis—but such a proof will not financially benefit anyone but the winner of the award.


That scientists serve as the handmaidens of business is true as the sun at noon, and not at all a ridiculous statement.
Most science is unprofitable and requires Government financially backing—USA particle physicists in particular are worried about the USA’s loss of dominance in this area because of lack of financial support from the government—business does not invest in these areas.

Mentious
01-26-2007, 11:16 PM
O.K. I might stand corrected in some ways. However, I believe that science at the university level still functions as a science nursery for business. Just as EDS courts computer science majors, and law firms come to court law students, universities have long been in a symbiotic relationship with business. I presume you'll also find many grants provided to college by business interests, influencing research goals.

None of this is meant by me to denigrate the sincerity of men who love knowledge and do want to study science for the sake of science. Obviously, scientists are among the most sincere types of people.

Sulla the Dictator
01-28-2007, 03:46 AM
What tedium.


I can see why you feel that way. I'm reading your website and encountering a great number of myths and outright wishful thinking about historical periods. The kind of facts that I provide you with must seem like a terrible imposition.

Sulla the Dictator
01-28-2007, 03:58 AM
An interesting example is this:

http://celibacy.info/AudioPageRaceImmigration.html

....where you illustrate a fantasy world of Western civilization (Including, strangely, Gillian Anderson). You then talk about how important racial 'culture' and racial 'pride' is. And how important that they be distinct and true to themselves and such.

Meanwhile, the rest of your website is FILLED to the brim with your efforts to transplant sub-continental Asiatic mysticism on people.

Hermetic
01-28-2007, 04:18 AM
Iam going to have to disagree the worlds or the Wests biggest religion is vain egoism and base entertainment.

Replace minister with scientist and you have religion, today's most popular religion.

Mentious
01-28-2007, 05:05 AM
I can see why you feel that way. I'm reading your website and encountering a great number of myths and outright wishful thinking about historical periods. The kind of facts that I provide you with must seem like a terrible imposition.
That was a very well done insult, Sulla, even though it was crafted for me. I'll even give you rep for it. :) Your writing improves all the time IMO, almost off the register. (And your diplomacy.) But I still say you only "cherry pick" when it comes to history. And remember, yesterday's "myth" can become today's "history" and yesterday's "history" often turns out to be myth. Your view that peoples of the past, of all times and climes, were in the exact same moral condition as people of today is certainly a myth. It's no more logical than saying the bugs in the Ozarks are no different than bugs in every other place, or that food in restaurants has always been the same. History is full of variation.

HrodbertPalatinus
01-28-2007, 09:04 AM
That the brutish lower orders of human civilization and societies in cycles of decay give evidence of low personal sexual standards is not something unexpected. Without any distempered emotion, what I am wondering is how Sulla can explain, given his thesis of the "abnormality" of celibacy and general ascetic values in the classical world, socioculturally central and elite offices and institutions of ascetic and celibate nature like the Hellenic Delphic Oracle and the Roman Vestal Virgins, and so on? No "alien" Christianity was around to promote puritanism and otherworldliness at this point, and the Delphic Oracle and the Vestal Virgins were at the very top of their societies and widely admired as examples of perfection in periods of maximal civilizational health. Perhaps it would be logical to conclude that ascetic sexual transmutation is an eternally valid practice present in the spiritual elite of all strong civilizations instead of a psychiatric problem indicative of sado-masochistic totalitarian tendencies? But that would require us to question and transcend the world of modern ideology--who among "skeptical" moderns is capable of skepsis toward their own modernity? What would moderns do without the escapist, soul-numbing oblivion of filthy, mafia-produced pornography?

Some day I plan to wage total war on this necrotic pornocracy infesting America and the West... Whether that means through bureaucratic means like becoming the head of the FBI or other possibilities, I am not sure at this point...

Hermetic
01-28-2007, 11:05 PM
How so?........
Today people like Kinsey have been exposed

Hermetic
01-28-2007, 11:07 PM
Forcing people to be moral(or just like you) never lasts very long.

That the brutish lower orders of human civilization and societies in cycles of decay give evidence of low personal sexual standards is not something unexpected. Without any distempered emotion, what I am wondering is how Sulla can explain, given his thesis of the "abnormality" of celibacy and general ascetic values in the classical world, socioculturally central and elite offices and institutions of ascetic and celibate nature like the Hellenic Delphic Oracle and the Roman Vestal Virgins, and so on? No "alien" Christianity was around to promote puritanism and otherworldliness at this point, and the Delphic Oracle and the Vestal Virgins were at the very top of their societies and widely admired as examples of perfection in periods of maximal civilizational health. Perhaps it would be logical to conclude that ascetic sexual transmutation is an eternally valid practice present in the spiritual elite of all strong civilizations instead of a psychiatric problem indicative of sado-masochistic totalitarian tendencies? But that would require us to question and transcend the world of modern ideology--who among "skeptical" moderns is capable of skepsis toward their own modernity? What would moderns do without the escapist, soul-numbing oblivion of filthy, mafia-produced pornography?

Some day I plan to wage total war on this necrotic pornocracy infesting America and the West... Whether that means through bureaucratic means like becoming the head of the FBI or other possibilities, I am not sure at this point...

Sulla the Dictator
01-28-2007, 11:49 PM
That the brutish lower orders of human civilization and societies in cycles of decay give evidence of low personal sexual standards is not something unexpected.


I have described the behaviours of the Hellenistic and Roman upper class, not just the Suburan proles or the helots.


Without any distempered emotion, what I am wondering is how Sulla can explain, given his thesis of the "abnormality" of celibacy and general ascetic values in the classical world, socioculturally central and elite offices and institutions of ascetic and celibate nature like the Hellenic Delphic Oracle and the Roman Vestal Virgins, and so on?


Sure, thats easy. They're women. It was no great thing for male oriented society to require female chastity as a price for higher place in the civilization. And the two rare institutions you mention are, of course, about as high as a woman could rise in either civilization.

Though I'm glad you mentioned the Vestals. Celibacy was the price they paid for unequalled status, among their gender. And they were not obligated to remain celibate after their term as Vestal had ended.

As for the Greeks, being a woman was one step up from being an animal or an ornament. Choosing to be the wife of some man whose only interest in yoou is as a breeder or being a celibate priestess and independant of male contempt was no real choice at all.


No "alien" Christianity was around to promote puritanism and otherworldliness at this point, and the Delphic Oracle and the Vestal Virgins were at the very top of their societies and widely admired as examples of perfection in periods of maximal civilizational health.


Not really. The Delphic oracle was thought to be a strange, vaguely menacing little creature and not something to be taken lightly. Delphic priestesses were CERTAINLY not 'widely admired as examples of perfection'. They were frightening.

As for the Vestals, there were six of them at any one time. Six women in a city of two million. I'm not quite sure how that supports your position.

The fact is, however, that feasts and celebrations of Dionysus, Bacchus, and Liber were probably a thousand times more common than 'celibate' religious institutions. As I mentioned earlier, the Priestesses of Aphrodite granted sexual favor during the Aphrodesiac. Thats not too celibate, and you can bet that THEY were expected to embody an ideal of physical perfection. :rofl:


Perhaps it would be logical to conclude that ascetic sexual transmutation is an eternally valid practice present in the spiritual elite of all strong civilizations instead of a psychiatric problem indicative of sado-masochistic totalitarian tendencies?


Sure. If you can give an example of a celibate, or semi-celibate, spiritual elite in the Classical world. The Vestals and the Delphic Oracle certainly aren't that. The College of Augurs is more relevant than either, and so are the various priests of Zeus and Jupiter.

In other respects the festival is celebrated almost exactly as Dionysiac festivals are in Hellas, excepting that the Egyptians have no choral dances and no plays. They also use phalli four cubits [6 feet] high, pulled by ropes, which the women carry around, and whose male genitalia are operated by strings to go up and down. A piper goes in front, and the women follow, singing hymns in honor of Dionysos. The erection of the phallus, however, which the Hellenes observe in their statues of Hermes, they did not derive from the Egyptians, but from the Pelasgians; from them the Athenians adopted it, and afterwards it passed to the other Hellenes. The Athenians, then, were the first of the Hellenes to have an erect phallus....

--Herodotus

Lorcan
01-29-2007, 02:08 AM
Not really. The Delphic oracle was thought to be a strange, vaguely menacing little creature and not something to be taken lightly. Delphic priestesses were CERTAINLY not 'widely admired as examples of perfection'. They were frightening.


Actually Delphic rituals were probably an extension of female chastity as opposed to a natively male tradition also.
Delphi was most originally linked with Gaia and the rituals practiced by the priests mirror that . For example the priests were not permitted to wear shoes either and had to sleep on the ground ,which makes no sense for priests of Appolo but perfect sense for worshiping the earth goddess. Gaia was displaced by Appolo at some point but the rituals remained much the same.Female chaste priestesses became chaste male priests.

Prophecy was still a female aspect as can be seen from the oracle to stories about cassandra and the fact Pythia was always female.

Female chastity was widely repected in the ancient world for example Artemis, Hestia and Athena were widely respected for their virginity. From a social point of view it makes sense too, female chastity insures parentage and whatever the culture that is always important.

HrodbertPalatinus
01-30-2007, 08:01 AM
Forcing people to be moral(or just like you) never lasts very long.

Upholding civilized law is not forcing everyone to be like myself. Civilized law is the necessary precondition for all human culture and spiritual accomplishment. The retrogressive gnostic-satanic and mafiya counter-elites of modernity controlling compulsory prostitution, child pornography, snuff films (pagan human sacrifice), ritual abuse, etc. are allowed to flourish in this post-Christian conscienceless civilization, and, if I need to, I plan to personally exterminate the whole riffraff completely alone, in spite of the indifference and hostility of the dark-hearted inverted modern world.

13:3. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

13:4. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

HrodbertPalatinus
01-30-2007, 11:31 AM
I have described the behaviours of the Hellenistic and Roman upper class, not just the Suburan proles or the helots.
You have described the behaviors of the corrupted sections of the Greco-Roman upper class. The chthonic and demonic cults of the pre-Hellenic savage Pelasgic substratum and their Dionysian and Aphroditic rites and customs did not originally belong to the conquering Achaeans and Dorians, nor to the original Latins, all strong-willed patriarchal Indo-European races that believed in self-restraint, modesty and chastity. You will notice the hostile way in which Greek historians describe the Pelasgians and the Pelasgic ethno-cultural connection to the unclassical, dehumanizing cults of the South and East. The excerpt from Herodotus clearly explains the originally un-Hellenic, Pelasgic origin of the primitive phallicism.

The values of the original Hellenic and Roman stocks emphasized aristocratic self-discipline and self-transcendence through superpersonal duty, worlds apart from the Dionysiac and Aphrodisian outbreaks and deviant sensualism of later years. The primordial Roman patricians considered the subjugated plebeian strata as gentem non habent; the sexually unchaste and promiscuous lifestyle of the plebeian was compared to that of wild animals, more ferarum (see Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City). Hellas and Rome are culturally significant for their Apollonian sublimation and rectification of the Pelasgic-Etruscan barbarism of Mediterranean Europe.

What do you think is the meaning of the opposition of the mythical King Pentheus to the Dionysian epidemic? What is the meaning of Rome's legally banning the Bacchanalia in 186 B.C., etc.?

Sure, thats easy. They're women. It was no great thing for male oriented society to require female chastity as a price for higher place in the civilization. And the two rare institutions you mention are, of course, about as high as a woman could rise in either civilization.
While chaste marriage was most common and honored, masculine celibacy and asceticism was present as well, in spite of your lack of knowledge. Even in times that showed signs of non-Hellenic impositions from below, Euripides could tell of the myth of the Greek noble hero and steadfast virgin Hippolytus. Hippolytus says of Artemis, "I greet her from afar; my life is clean." Hippolytus expresses the ideal of supernatural virility:

O God, why hast Thou made this gleaming snare,
Woman, to dog us on the happy earth?
...Woe upon you, woe!
How can I too much hate you, while the ill
Ye work upon the world grows deadlier still?
Too much? Make woman pure, and wild Love tame,
Or let me cry for ever on their shame!

Many pre-Christian Greek and Roman philosophers, initiates and mystics also valued and practiced (masculine) celibacy and asceticism. The famous Greek Pythagoras, for one, founded an explicitly celibate initiatory brotherhood for both women and men. Pythagoras answered a man who asked when it was best to have sex: "When you want to lose what strength you have." The only sex the Pythagoreans approved of for lesser-willed brethren was strictly procreative.

Plato combined Pythagorean teachings with his own high genius. According to Plato, mundane love is practically a form of bestiality. Plato taught that to free ourselves from the lower hierarchies of Eros we must practice virtuous living and austere sexual continence. In Plato's Republic, the tragedian Sophocles is asked whether he still feels the sexual impulse: "Hush, man, most gladly have I escaped this thing you talk of, as if I had run away from a raging and savage beast of a master."

The Stoics similarly were legislators of chastity and prohibited absolutely all forms of sexuality beyond the procreative act in legitimate marriage. The great Roman philosopher Seneca represented the original Roman spirit when he said: "A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not affection. Let him control his impulses and not be borne headlong into copulation. Nothing is fouler than to love a wife like an adulteress."

Though I'm glad you mentioned the Vestals. Celibacy was the price they paid for unequalled status, among their gender. And they were not obligated to remain celibate after their term as Vestal had ended.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Vestales.html

Few however availed themselves of these privileges; those who did were said to have lived in sorrow and remorse (as might indeed have been expected from the habits they had formed); hence such a proceeding was considered ominous, and the priestesses for the most part died as they had lived in the service of the goddess (Tacit. Ann. II.86; Inscrip. quoted by Gronov. ad Tacit. Ann. III.64).

More later...

Hermetic
01-30-2007, 04:50 PM
Define civilized law, man makes many laws that run a nation and these laws reflect the spirit of the law makers. Your ranting on groups real in reality or just real to you aside. You want to project the way you want others to live and believe onto greater society.


Upholding civilized law is not forcing everyone to be like myself. Civilized law is the necessary precondition for all human culture and spiritual accomplishment. The retrogressive gnostic-satanic and mafiya counter-elites of modernity controlling compulsory prostitution, child pornography, snuff films (pagan human sacrifice), ritual abuse, etc. are allowed to flourish in this post-Christian conscienceless civilization, and, if I need to, I plan to personally exterminate the whole riffraff completely alone, in spite of the indifference and hostility of the dark-hearted inverted modern world.

13:3. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

13:4. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

HrodbertPalatinus
01-30-2007, 05:47 PM
Civilized law is based on natural law, which is based on cosmic and divine law. Conforming to the natural law has nothing do with my subjective projections. Cicero understood:

"For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely." (Rep. III, 22, 33)

Or in the words of Leo XIII: "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted." (Libertas praestantissimum, 597)

And yes, the groups and practices I have mentioned do indeed exist, and must be combated. Things like forced prostitution, human trafficking and human sacrifice, merciless ritual slaying of children, etc. belong to the ancient unextirpated "black" paganism of Europe. Such phenomena are gradually and subtly returning in our modern technological world as the Church's power to restrain evil has weakened...

Hermetic
01-31-2007, 01:33 AM
Really then, our rulers claim our current legalism system is civilized law and would disagree with your statement. The christian religion mass murdered tens of thousands of people across Europe for being loyal to their Organic folk Traditions which where based on natural laws, whole villages where wiped clean of my people. If that is how your church restrains evil, evil being anything that is a threat to their gangster rackett, then no thanks jesusfreak. Go back to zion and jewurislam where you belong.

Your christianity is the religion of the kali Yuga.

Civilized law is based on natural law, which is based on cosmic and divine law. Conforming to the natural law has nothing do with my subjective projections.

And yes, the groups and practices I have mentioned do indeed exist, and must be combated. Things like forced prostitution, human trafficking and human sacrifice, merciless ritual slaying of children, etc. belong to the ancient unextirpated "black" paganism of Europe. Such phenomena are gradually and subtly returning in our modern technological world as the Church's power to restrain evil has weakened...

HrodbertPalatinus
01-31-2007, 11:24 AM
Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann on the cultural-spiritual meaning of Hippolytus:

“The figure of Hippolytus takes its place alongside that of Pentheus and Narcissus. From love of Artemis, from chastity and love of his own self, he scorns Aphrodite by scorning the love of his stepmother Phaedra, and on the orders of his father and with the help of the god Poseidon he is dragged to death by his own horses . . . The scorned Aphrodite and the scorned stepmother go together. They represent the Great Mother who amorously pursues the son and kills him when he resists. Hippolytus is bound to the virgin Artemis as a spiritual figure, the ‘girl friend’ who resembles Athene . . .

Aphrodite seeks vengeance because Hippolytus, in the growing pride of ego consciousness, ‘despises’ her and declares that she is ‘the lowest among the heavenly ones.’ Whether we interpret the dragging to death of Hippolytus as madness, love or retribution—the central fact is the vengeance of the Great Mother, the overpowering of the ego by subterranean forces. Hippolytus is at the stage of critical resistance to the Great Mother, already conscious of himself as a young man struggling for autonomy and independence. This is evident from his repudiation of the Great Mother’s advances and of her phallic, orgiastic sexuality. His ‘chastity’, however, means far more than a rejection of sex; it signifies the coming to consciousness of the ‘higher’ masculinity as opposed to the ‘lower’ phallic variety. On the subjective level, it is the conscious realization of the ‘solar’ masculinity which Bachofen contrasts with ‘chthonic’ masculinity. This higher masculinity is correlated with light, the sun, the eye and consciousness.” The Origins and History of Consciousness

Mentious
01-31-2007, 11:33 AM
...world of Western civilization (Including, strangely, Gillian Anderson)...Meanwhile, the rest of your website is FILLED to the brim with your efforts to transplant sub-continental Asiatic mysticism on people.
The Vedas and the religious culture of India were originally a creation of Aryans, Sulla. Don't be a dunce. Meanwhile, Christianity has tight parallels with the Vedas. The value of chastity/brahmacharya, for example, was strong both in Christ and the Vedas. Both have traditions of austerities/penances, as well as meditation.

Many think that Christ was actually a classic India yogi, and that his "missing years" were spent in India studying the religion of the Aryans. (It is taken for granted in India, including the locations where he was.) So European culture, spun on the matrix of Christianity, was actually spun on the matrix of the Vedas, yoga, and the teachings of the Aryans. See?

If you want to just view me as a Christian, go ahead. If that will help your head settle down. But I would be one who allows his Christianity to be informed by analogous traditions from the east. (And don't forget that Nazareth and Palestine. are eastern in the first place.)

And Gillian Anderson is a beautiful Euro female type. She is of Scandinavian extraction. She has also been considered one of the beauties of the world during her time. Having her on a page affirming the value of the European races/cultures is completely appropriate.

You seem to be on drugs when you wrote that, Sulla.

tempus fugit
01-31-2007, 11:43 AM
I find it odd that some people are so vehemently against Julian, and specifically his call for increased male continence.

When I told people that I haven't owned a TV in 15 years, or a car in 10 years, no one budged. Surely that is more strange, at least statistically.

Odd.

Mentious
01-31-2007, 07:33 PM
It hits at the root of rot.

Helios Panoptes
01-31-2007, 07:37 PM
I find it odd that some people are so vehemently against Julian, and specifically his called for increased male continence.

When I told people that I haven't owned a TV in 15 years, or a car in 10 years, no one budged. Surely that is more strange, at least statistically.

Odd.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't you live in NYC? I know of many people from the area without cars. A car can be a albatross for city folk because there's no place to park it.

tempus fugit
01-31-2007, 07:53 PM
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't you live in NYC? I know of many people from the area without cars. A car can be a albatross for city folk because there's no place to park it.

Yes sir, that is true. However, 98% of US families own a TV, and 91% own a car.

My guess is that the % of NYers who own neither is exceedingly small, and far smaller than the % who are at least somewhat continent.

Helios Panoptes
01-31-2007, 08:00 PM
Yes sir, that is true. However, 98% of US families own a TV, and 91% own a car.

My guess is that the % of NYers who own neither is exceedingly small, and far smaller than the % who are at least somewhat continent.

Indeed, that is likely, but do you imagine those NYers who are somewhat continent have a belief that sexual continence causes better health and cognitive functioning? The majority of NYers who are sexually continent will be comprised of two types: 1) those who have low sex drives due either to natural disposition or poor health; 2) the religious. The number of continent NYers who hold beliefs similar to Julian and a few other members is probably vanishingly small.

Hartmann von Aue
01-31-2007, 11:16 PM
Indeed, that is likely, but do you imagine those NYers who are somewhat continent have a belief that sexual continence causes better health and cognitive functioning? The majority of NYers who are sexually continent will be comprised of two types: 1) those who have low sex drives due either to natural disposition or poor health; 2) the religious. The number of continent NYers who hold beliefs similar to Julian and a few other members is probably vanishingly small.

You seem to be presuming that one would only agree with Julian on a religious basis.

That's simply not true.

Helios Panoptes
02-01-2007, 12:51 AM
You seem to be presuming that one would only agree with Julian on a religious basis.

That's simply not true.

I am being realistic. The percentage of people in New York City who are celibate because they believe it leads to improved cognitive functioning and health is bound to be miniscule. Almost all "somwwhat continent" persons will fall into one of the two kinds I mentioned.

Fire
10-04-2013, 02:44 PM
Interesting discussion!

Special thanks to HrodbertPalatinus, Hartmann von Aue and Julian Lee

dodona
10-06-2013, 09:40 AM
I was wondering this the other day. Jung described Hitler as of the "mystical medicine man" spiritual personality type. Hitler's sex life is the subject of much rumour, speculation and propaganda (if he had one at all). Do you think he fits the mould of a celibate?
the perverted criminal Hitler was a gay celibate who stopped passive anal-sex with men when becoming popular. As a gay femme he was incapable having sex with women.

LordHawHaw
10-06-2013, 09:44 AM
the perverted criminal Hitler was a gay celibate who stopped passive anal-sex with men when becoming popular. As a gay femme he was incapable having sex with women.

Sticknigger alert.