How the French Became So Gay. A Nietzschean history. (2014)

In the penultimate section of the first treatise of On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche calls the nobility of seventeenth and eighteenth century France “the last political nobility which there was in Europe” (section 16). And in the Wikipedia article on French nobility, it says:

[size=95]“The idea of what it meant to be noble went through a radical transformation from the 16th to the 17th centuries. Through contact with the Italian Renaissance and their concept of the perfect courtier (Baldassare Castiglione), the rude warrior class was remodeled into what the 17th century would come to call l’honnête homme (‘the honest or upright man’), among whose chief virtues were eloquent speech, skill at dance, refinement of manners, appreciation of the arts, intellectual curiosity, wit, a spiritual or platonic attitude in love, and the ability to write poetry.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nobility#Aristocratic_codes)[/size]

I suspect this development is not a good thing from an aristocratic radicalist point of view. Thus Nietzsche declares:

[size=95]“War on the effeminate conception of ‘nobility’!–a quantum more of brutality cannot be dispensed with, any more than closeness to crime. Even ‘self-satisfaction’ is not part of it; one should be adventurous, experimental, destructive also toward oneself–no beautiful-soul twaddle–. I want to make room for a more robust ideal.” (The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 951 whole.)[/size]

The period described in the Wikipedia article, “from the 16th to the 17th centuries”, is roughly the period of the Counter-Reformation; it is Late Renaissance, i.e., when the High Renaissance was already over:

[size=95]“Is it understood at last, will it ever be understood, what the Renaissance was? The transvaluation of Christian values,–an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the opposite values, the more noble values… This has been the one great war of the past; there has never been a more critical question than that of the Renaissance–it is my question too–; there has never been a form of attack more fundamental, more direct, or more violently delivered by a whole front upon the center of the enemy! To attack at the critical place, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more noble values–that is to say, to insinuate them into the instincts, into the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there… I see before me the possibility of a perfectly heavenly enchantment and spectacle:–it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of a fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so infernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years for another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter–Caesar Borgia as pope!… Am I understood?.. Well then, that would have been the sort of triumph that I alone am longing for today–: by it Christianity would have been swept away!–” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 61, Mencken translation.)[/size]

Cesare Borgia died in 1503; the Counter-Reformation began between 1545 and 1563 and ended in 1648. And in 1673, the first successful French opera was first performed, before Louis XIV, who is represented as the Sun God in the Prologue.

[size=95]“[T]he Jews have a pleasure in their divine monarch and saint similar to that which the French nobility had in Louis XIV. This nobility had allowed its power and autocracy to be taken from it, and had become contemptible: in order not to feel this, in order to be able to forget it, an unequalled royal magnificence, royal authority and plenitude of power was needed, to which there was access only for the nobility. As in accordance with this privilege they raised themselves to the elevation of the court, and from that elevation saw everything under them,–saw everything contemptible,–they got beyond all uneasiness of conscience. They thus elevated intentionally the tower of the royal power more and more into the clouds, and set the final coping-stone of their own power thereon.” (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, aphorism 136, Common translation.)[/size]

To be sure, Lully’s Cadmus et Hermione has been a delightful discovery for me. I value it, however, for what it harks back to, not for what it led up to. Lully–a born Italian, mind you–catered especially to the reigning French tastes in order to get the French to embrace opera. For this reason, there is a lot of pre-Baroque French nobility in it. But as the Wikipedia article on Baroque music says:

[size=95]“[T]he beginning of opera […] was somewhat of a catalyst for Baroque music.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_music#Early_baroque_music_.281580.E2.80.931630.29)[/size]

And Baroque was, so to say, the beginning of the end… It’s the beginning of what’s usually called “classical music”–which however is nothing Classical. The next phase, which immediately follows Baroque, is called “the Classical period”; but, as in the other arts, what follows Baroque here is of course not Classical but Rococo, or at best a reaction to Rococo…

[size=95]“The ‘good old’ days are gone. In Mozart they sang themselves out:–how lucky we are that his rococo still speaks to us, that his ‘good society,’ his loving raptures, his childish delight in Chinese effects and curlicues, the civility in his heart, his desire for delicacy, lovers, dancers, those with blissful tears, his faith in the south can still appeal to some remnant in us!” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 245, Johnston translation.)

“Does the concept grand style ultimately stand in contradiction to the soul of music–to the ‘woman’ in our music?–
I here touch upon a cardinal question: where does our entire music belong? The ages of classical taste knew nothing to compare with it: it began to blossom when the Renaissance world had attained its evening, when ‘freedom’ had departed from morals and even from men:–is it part of its character to be counter-Renaissance? […]
Mozart–a delicate and amorous soul, but entirely eighteenth century, even when he is serious,–Beethoven the first great romantic, in the sense of the French conception of romanticism, as Wagner is the last great romantic–both instinctive opponents of classical taste, of severe style–to say nothing of ‘grand’ style.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 842. Note that in the KSA it says “wishes” (Wünschen) instead of “men” (Menschen).)[/size]

And with this, I finally get to my point. “The ‘woman’ in our music”: there you have it. When I tried to explain my thesis concerning the first Wikipedia quote above to a friend of mine, he, plebeian that he is, said something like: “Oh, so you’re saying that that’s when the French became so gay!” And indeed, it was; though, ironically, not in the sense of gai saber, of course! I mean it in the sense that the French gradually became so feminized that they allowed the English to fuck them in the ass, if you’ll pardon my French–inseminating them with “modern ideas”:

[size=95]“What people call ‘modern ideas’ or ‘the ideas of the eighteenth century’ or even ‘French ideas’–in other words, what the German spirit has risen against with a deep disgust–were English in origin. There’s no doubt of that. The French have been only apes and actors of these ideas, their best soldiers, as well, and at the same time unfortunately their first and most complete victims. For with the damnable Anglomania of ‘modern ideas’ the âme française [French soul] has finally become so thin and emaciated that nowadays we remember almost with disbelief its sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its profoundly passionate power, its resourceful nobility. But with our teeth we must hang on to the following principle of historical fairness and defend it against the appearance of the moment: European noblesse–in feeling, in taste, in customs, in short, the word taken in every higher sense–is the work and invention of France; European nastiness [Gemeinheit], the plebeian quality of modern ideas, the work of England.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 253, Johnston translation.)[/size]

But why does Nietzsche here speak so favourably of sixteenth and seventeenth century France? I don’t think this contradicts my thesis; for I think it was precisely the contradiction between the robust or “rude” reality of the French warrior class and the effeminate conception of “nobility” with which it was infected that gave him reason to do so:

[size=95]“The two opposite values ‘good and bad’, ‘good and evil’ have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years; and though it’s true that the second value has for a long time had the upper hand, even now there’s still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. One could even say that it has in the meantime been drawn to ever greater heights and thereby become ever deeper, ever more spiritual: so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a ‘higher nature’, a more spiritual nature, than to be split in that sense and truly still be a battleground for those opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script that has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called ‘Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome’:–there has up to the present been no greater event than this battle, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies.” (Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, First Treatise, section 16.)[/size]

The robust or “rude” reality of the French warrior class corresponds to “Rome”; the effeminate conception of “nobility” with which it was infected corresponds to “Judea”.

Mode edit: irrelevant personal attack rant removed. Poster warned.

When another of my few friends insisted on showing me some songs from last year’s Eurovision Song Festival–to which I otherwise would never have listened–, I really only liked the French contribution to any degree, saying “it is not gay, for it is French!” over and over. If it had been any other nation’s contribution, it would have been super gay; but because it was France’s, that was beside the point.

In late 2013, my list of favourite music had for some time been the following:

• certain Hindu(-influenced) music (incl. Goa Trance and Vedic Metal);
• The Doors;
• Tool;
• certain Metal (notably Absu and Einherjer);
• certain tender yet dark Sixties(-style) music;
• certain Classical composers (notably Bizet and Nietzsche);
• Nirvana;
• Marilyn Manson;
• Burro Banton (especially his Dancehall);
• some more Rock and Electronic music;
• some hiphop (notably Eminem and Cypress Hill).

But then, I got into a kind of musical crisis. Looking for music in the grand style, I really only had Nietzsche. Rousseau led me to Lully, and I’d also started looking beyond modern (“classical”) music to things like the music of the Troubadours, ancient Greek lyre music, ancient Roman music, etc. This development was an expression of my recent radicalisation–aristocratic radicalisation. I even considered keeping CapsLock activated whenever possible, because lower case letters are feminine.

Soon, I decided against the CapsLock thing–at least for now. But as regards music, as a rule the only post-1600 music I tend to listen to now is Nietzsche. I’ve identified what Nietzsche calls “the ‘woman’ in our music” as tonal harmony. Here’s an especially extreme example of what I pit against it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK4Q7SVY1-E[/youtube]

What I loathe about tonal music is that it has been consciously designed to be as agreeable as possible–down to psychological and physiological considerations. Of course it has minor chords as well, but these are, so to say, the bitterness that is to make the sweetness of the major scale sound even sweeter. Atonal music is then the converse: it is consciously designed to be as disagreeable as possible. This is already better, but only in the sense that “evil” is superior to “good”: atonal music is not yet beyond good and evil, beyond sweet and bitter; modal music, on the other hand, is not just bitter and sweet, but also sour, salt, and umami.–

That Nietzsche aspired to the grand style with his music is suggested to me by von Bülow’s response to his “Manfred Meditation” (compare WP 842).

My current favourites are, in no particular order, all Ensemble De Organographia’s music from the 16th century at the latest; Synaulia’s Music of Ancient Rome, Vol. I (haven’t even tried Vol. 2 yet); Christopher Wilson’s Early Venetian Lute Music; Arany Zoltan’s The Last of the Troubadours; everything I know by Petros Tabouris; and Les Musiciens de Provence’s Musique des trouvères et des troubadours.

How is it that you can dare to call the French effimently gay by seeing things through a effimenent foreign prism when you yourself do this with Nietzsche?

Its a honest question. You gotta know just his utterly weak and pathetic I think you are, and your deep dependence on Nietzsche, harmonizing what little exists of your own independent thought to his; diminishing the growth of your own intellect. You literally can’t think without a dependent reference to him. You have no thoughts of your own, and if your target audience was switched to people not that impressed with Nietzsche, you would come off as hollow and faggy, crying for a invisible era that the pages of history and the archeological record managed to miss.

Some obvious problems with your critique, Opera neither made nor broke French culture. There was already a continental culture of plays and music, as well as universities and learning, long predating this era. Emphasis on continental.

Secondly, the French, while staying majority Catholic, had a large protestant population, some of which predated the reformation. How did the French reaction to the protestant reformation differ from the Waldensian or the Cathar conflicts? This well precedes the era under consideration by you, but comes off as identical in behavior. Likewise French Operations overseas in Egypt and the Levant.

Your stuck ostrachizing a culture that you don’t begin to grasp, which developed early on (much earlier than you admit to) in Charlemagne era, and claiming it to be otherwise upon the introduction of Opera? This is absurd.

And the French, like the British, followed Chivalry, with its emphasis on courtship and feminine ideals. This derives not from Christianity, but Emperor Augustus, and his mixing of philosophies to secure a stable breeding optimate class. It naturally mutated over time, but its obvious by the sixth century the Romans had already in place most of the elements your against, and yet paradoxically for (can’t have one without the other). I can walk you through, era by era by era if your confused.

None of the music you mentioned during the Euro-Vision concert has anything to do with the era you mentioned over any other. Your just acting loopy, hoping nobody noticed this I suppose.

Synaulia is my favorite Italian band, they do recreations of Roman hypothetical roman music. You really should finish the columns, and question how a christian knew of the music years prior to yourself. Its not authentic though, they just use historical Greek and Roman Instruments. I’m very active in the Roman History community on the net.

From 1275 to 1579 owners holding noble fiefs who were not already ennobled had to hold the land for three generations.

The fiefs were rarely hereditary reaching back into the oldest records, the were not gained from combat or theft, simply bought and inherited via less noble lines. Its a percularity of the French Nobility, its laws of succession, that caused this depletion and inability for lineages to hold their estates.

As a result, most of the French nobility wasn’t that noble. Only a handful of generations deep, and much gained from holding muninciple office, not combat related nobility. Likewise, a merchant could just buy a degree of nobility. The French nobility doesn’t have much to say of itself when you look into its actual historical practices prior to and during this false golden age you aspire to.

I doubt even the gentilhomme des 4 lignes could hold to your standards for them, as your inputting ideals alien to their era upon them.

Lastly, you fail to recognize the French are both rude and effeminient in our era. Its not one or the other, but a natural basis to their national character. The French are Masochistic Fags, the Dutch are a bunch of weak willed, ignorant quitters who go out of their way to defend the necessity to bend over for every new power coming their way to fuck them, as if its some virtue.

You are simply listening to music. There is no connection between what your listening to, and the era your associating it with. Quit making uneducated connections. Nietzsche doesn’t count here, as his brain was riddled with syphilis and he died well over a hundred years ago. Its just you making assumptions.

Besides, its a bit Uncanny Valley of you to attack this, as l’honnete homme philosophically encouraged a merger of aesthetics into harmony, avoidance of extremes, being a generalist over a specialist. These are all INTP traits. Your obviously attacking yourself as if you WERE Nietzsche (INTJ- we are naturally attracted to more complex music, you should hear my music list sometime) because we better laterize complex information between the various parts of the mind.

I see in you someone who hates himself, and seeks to demolish himself. Your willing to use any trick to claw yourself out, but at the same time are too proud to let go. You inevitable strike out against your every illusion, but these illusions are you.

I recommend you stop building manniquinns of yourself, and just come to peace with who you are. Quit trying to become what your not, and accept the neurological ordering of your consciousness. You obviously had a genetic predisposition fir being a INTP, every post you made screams it. Stop trying to force a change. Your reminding me of the monastics who tried to develop their Keter qualities (INTJ) at the expense of Tif’eret (INTP). Its silly. Your only fighting against yourself in this struggle. Your already utilizing these aspects in your subconscious. Its great Nietzsche introduced you to his musical style, but you shouldn’t seek to demolish yourself in the process.

Quit projecting femininity upon the French. Its from you. It is you, that which you struggle against. This thread, like most of your threads, have been little more than a struggle against the outward effiminent behavior preceding from your own internal disposition. INTPs typically tend to be more loose and accepting of a range of sexual behaviors formally, while being socially constrained. Its okay if you have gay thoughts on occasion. You can come out of the closet. We understand, and will accept you for who you are… but we can only do this if your brave enough to admit it. You don’t have to attack the world through Nietzsche anymore, as a chimera of types. You can just be yourself. We are here for you if you need us.

Oh no we won’t neither.

Sauwelios, you have some explaining to do. Is it true that you putt from the rough?

Who is this turd and why is he telling me this?

He’s just a parasite I contracted at The Nietzsche Forum (which has gone the way of ILO). And no, it’s not true.

Yeah I don’t know why guys at philosophy forums get into these alpha male ‘I’m a man and you aren’t’ things when 99 percent of them are all semi-interesting, ordinary middle class automatons with soft desk jobs and mundane lives. Compare that noble, romantic image of the male virtu(e) that is created and recreated all over internet fora to the actual people who create this imaging.

What is it that makes one of these guys the kind of male they aspire to in their philosophizing? I’ll tell you. A male forum philosopher will lower the conceptual bar just enough so that he won’t/can’t come up with an image and idea of man that is higher than he can reach, for that would be an insult to himself. Offensive to one’s pride and vanity.

Steadily, the concept changes and is adapted to the average type that aspires to become it, rather than the average type adapting to the concept… lowering the bar.

I always wonder which males at a philosophy forum have the right to call any of the other males feminine.

Exactly… it’s a claim to masculinity as a abstracted higher form (platonic form) over and above our concrete experiences of males, and whatever immediate memories or perceptions of malehood is. Adding burdensome rules and binding strings of theory to it. Chimera of manhood against its opposite, a fantasy of ought and not the plain as day is.

I have always been a jester in this regard. I use simple Aristotelian-Bergson formulas of geometric comedy to upend and rue it. I really don’t claim to be much of a man. I’m 6 foot, hairy chest, was a arctic paratrooper, etc… so I can rest confident I can’t easily be dragged out of manhood by someone tying to dislodge me, but because of that, I’m barely aware of it.

I don’t have to do stupid things like compare compare centuries old opera to other civilizations to show how (on very false historical ground, I assure you no mainstream historian will accept Sauwelious position) a whole country “turned rude to gay”. This is admittedly pretty far fetched and is needless posturing. I don’t think anyone was questioning Sauwelios’ sexuality before he started to in this very thread.

His underlining presumption of the former French manhood is false, most of its nobility bought or worked it’s way into position from none military means, very much counter to stereotype. Was a pretty fluid group, composed of most everyone by the time of Sauwelios’ glory age. This is a fact. Sausalito is not a historian, he didn’t research it. He just presumed, collecting it from Nietzsche.

At root in Sauwelios post is a sexual identity issue. He tries to connect the scattered thoughts into a formal logic to prove the French were supergay, while the rest of Europe was moderately gay in comparison, and he… HE… was distressed at this. It’s quite obvious Europe is still making babies, it ha over 400 million people. It’s population isn’t declining from the cause of musical taste. This is a shitty example of misappropriation of effect as cause.

Only thing I can in the end take from Sauwelios post is that he was watching Eurovision Concert (admittedly, a pretty faggy thing to do) and started questioning his sexuality, and solved it by a entire country of breeders, France, as gay,and everyone else as somewhat gay.

How much more Freudian do we have to get here. He was actually questioning his own sexuality here. His historical mechanism is dead upon arrival, a rather pathetic dodge.

What… are we all supposed to just nod our heads in agreement Sauwelios and say you most certainly are not gay, that you are the opposite of the gay French?

You just outted yourself in this thread Sau. Nobody made you do it. I’m not gonna flick on Rupaul’s Drag Race and get emotional and confused, and blame the Mongols for it, pointing out their snare drums in the 14th century made everyone sexually confused.

It exists. Fags with flags, a flag I don’t salute. I’m straight, I’m more worried that young women are modelling themselves off of Molly Cyrus or Lady Gags, cause they are the prefered age group straight single men are interested in (legal and prime) purely sexually.

Someone who is trying to judge centuries old opera, while watching Eurovision of all things, questioning the nature of sexuality, is clearly having issues. You could of just kept it to yourself. A heterosexual with occasional gay thoughts would do just this, reserving the impulse to just looking over the urinal divider at the guy next to him. You clearly were stirred much deeper, and felt the need to explain it to everyone how you indeed were NOT gay, indeed, everyone else was. Yeah… world population is over seven billion now, everyone is gay, except special you.

So your questioning obviously backfired. The first step out of the closet is always the hardest. But you have precedence. Foucault was a gay Nietzschean. Gabriele D’Annunzio must of been… he was a Nietzschean who established a state north of Italy after WW1 modelled off of the Principles of Music and lead by Supermen. I mean… look at his pics, obvious he was at least super-bi, if not gay:

thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/mul … 18147k.jpg

1.bp.blogspot.com/-BqWmsnH3Seo/V … nunzio.jpg

1.bp.blogspot.com/-BqWmsnH3Seo/V … nunzio.jpg

I’ve already established there is a obvious pattern to Nietzschean behavior in “the truth about the Nietzscheans” thread… I looked at every major Nietzchean who made a mark on history (not just writing) and everyone emerged as struggling with a sexual dysfunction centered around their struggle with their sexuality.

You are the one who made this thread, not me. Your the one attacking religions and countries, whole continents for being faggots. I’m the historian here, and I call bullshit upon your presumptions. Invalid. Likewise, I’m the philosopher, you never attained such a status as you never learned to think on your own, develop your own mind and perspective, tossing aside the Nietzschean training wheels.

What is going to be your next thread? Are you going to attack North Americansas gay because you cried through a mix martial arts tournament, became disgusted at the site of the matriarchial rule of busty ring girls walking around the ring, and muscled tattooed men fighting, bleeding from their wounds as some kind of symbolic menstruation? Then go on a tour of force of the proper male form, aesthetically built, muscular yet boyish, beautiful, with small cocks? Are you going to then claim all fights should be done in the nude, lathered in olive oil, in greco-style wresting? Cause that’s what straight men would do, if they were like you?

Cesar called it “Penis Magic”… yes? I’m tired of this penis magic. Your always cryptic yet obvious as hell once your false historic claims are squashed.

It is a incredible uphill battle to not say you were NOT questioning at the nature of sexuality, and making comparisons of yourself against strawmen. Questioning your sexuality while watching Eurovision… a shedding tears! This from a guy who’s highest sexual ideals involves whipping and inflicting pain upon women. What do you have against them? Straight guys love their women, impregnate them, make them wives and mothers. Not lock them up and the basement and smack them around.

Don’t punish them for your own problems. Your not merely fucking them up, but yourself.

We can pretend like this thread never happened, for a while, but your eventually will have to face catharsis. We will accept you once you arrive, whatever decision you ultimately come to, as long as it is honest and heart felt.

Just know your not fooling anyone anymore. You bitterly and most literally just accused everyone but you being gay while indulging in some classically gayshit yourself.

And before anyone starts inspecting my secret dark sexual kinks, Ill just say it. I get aroused at the thought of twins lesbians going at it. Once, they were conjoined. Also occasionally midget lesbians, a stump pornography where people lost limbs prior (healed) Serious fucking problems here, plus more… but I’m not going to go to such absurd lengths to rationalize it to everyone who never suspected it in the first place by building up a false historical world, and proclaiming everyone else is actually the ones tucked up and I also, plus a narrow clique of friends are right minded. That be pretty tucked up if I did that. It’s essentially what you did Sauwelios, save your kinks are worst as they are psychologically abusive and demeaning, and built upon logic juveniles know to reject.

So among other things you think Sauwelios might be gay because, because his theory on the gaynization of the French through a change in ethos and culture was wrong, he must be projecting some deep, metaphysical, psychological feminine stuff he has inside, out onto the French?

Well I mean he does have a girlfriend or informal wife, dude. He coulda just as easily got himself an informal husband if he were gay, right?

Maybe Saully isn’t a paratrooper (that’s awesome… we gotta talk about that, I’ve skydived before), or has a hairy chest (that’s awesome… we gotta talk about that, I’ve got a hairy chest) but he’s a sex machine in the bed room on mushrooms, and he can keep a job and pay the rent.

What else must a modern man do to be a man. I think it’s time the old school men accept a paradigm shift and a new consciousness of the roles and identities of the the sexes. Not because we want to, but because we have to, lest we have a secret philosophical, military academy cult organization and our own ethos.

I’d have Saully do administrative work, and he would be an indispensable part of the team. In other words, if Sauwelios stopped doing his job, the gears would stop turning and the whole camp would shut down. Sauwelios makes Goebbels look like an errand boy.

I’ll tell you why you get this feminine impression from Saully. It is his forum disposition, his good tastes, his elegant style and structure of writing, his amiable nature and his ability for clean debate without personal attack.

Saully never starts a fight (odd for a Leo… his Mars might be in a mutable sign or his rising sign might be feminine…could be anything). He is not capricious, but calm and calculated, and I’ve heard him say ‘fuck’ once in almost ten years. He’s not one to tug at his balls, but he could write one of the best expositions on ball tugging and its philological, historical and cultural meanings, you have ever read… if he wanted to.

If he isn’t single handedly navigating philosophical labyrinths most men would never even see and making profound connections between all kinds of concepts and ideas, it isn’t because he can’t. It’s because he won’t, and the day that Saully will no longer pick up his pen is a sad day for me, for ILP, for mankind.

Sauwelios feels himself to be a philosophical laborer or worker, in a way. He feels himself to be an accurate interpreter of Nietzsche, especially, and his modus operandi here is to present and introduce what he believes is instructive in N’s philosophy. Nothing wrong with that. How many ‘introducing X’ philosophy books are on the shelves today at the book store. More than any actual original material. Would Saully still be sucking N’s dick if he published a best selling five hundred page book on Nietzsche’s philosophy? No. You’d be impressed and might actually understand the book… provided you hath ears. So, pretend everything you read is from the book of Sauwelios and you will be able to tolerate it.

Sauwelios is a writer a philosopher can both enjoy reading while also settling into the writing didactically and deductively. It is an excellent balance of poetic and prose form.

You just don’t see it bro. Sauwelios is an philosophical architect in a sirius way. Maybe you haven’t read enough of his earlier stuff (from 04-07).

Are you saying my theory was wrong, or just that that’s what this self-admitted turd here is saying? In any case, note that I never said the French were gay; that’s what my cynical friend said. I said they were feminized. I expressly said the French contribution to the 2014 Eurovision Song Festival was not gay, because it was French.

Thanks for the–tribute.

I dunno, I can’t remember what you wrote at length. I’d have to read it again. What I do know, however, is that one’s sexuality cannot possibly be determined by what one says. Hairy the Paratrooper here has a picture of you in his head that has been formed from the master interpretation he has developed of you over the years he has known you. That master interpretation permeates everything, and everything begins to look like ‘something a feminine man would say’ to Hairy the Paratrooper, over time.

(this master interpretation has happened to Satyr and myself, as well)

Contrary to popular opinion, N. was not gay.

He was, actually, into some hardcore BDSM master/slave sex.

He was more of a submissive-masochist, than sadist-master.

He enjoyed self-punishment.

I doubt a real man would be on ilpturds.com prancing about debating who and who is not feminine and a real man.

Sandra, Sandra, what the heck?! You didn’t discover yet the feminization of the man that came through Christianity? But you did discover the racism of the Phillipinos…

An upright man must discover and resolve the feminization, the anti-white racism and the anti-riches democratization of the world if he wants to impregnate something else but a monkey.

Today in the face of the decline of Europe, one must ask himself does he want to die like a man, fighting, or like a Conchita Wurst singing to a pussy-pride!

In the time after Alexander the great, all men were wearing makeup and jewelry. Check that out you crippled “historian”!

This “honnete homme” sounds like Clark Gable’s character (Rhett Butler), from Gone with the Wind (1939), although there is no suggestion that the character is French. This is the prologue to that movie:

Whether this is an accurate portrayal of the Old South or not, who can say, if we want to compare the Margaret Mitchell novel say to Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. I think there is a tendency for certain periods to become romanticized by history. If I had to bet, I would say Huck Finn, which was written at the time, is probably a better portrayal of the Old South, but with the caveat that America is a hodgepodge of different cultures and influences at the time. But more to the point, I might call this Butler character from Gone with the Wind a dandy, but I wouldn’t call him effeminate, and I don’t think that he is regarded as effeminate by the popular culture.

I don’t buy into this idea that a man’s relationship with women determines how much of a man he is. If a guy has a woman, and he decides when they will have sex, where they will have sex, and how often, some people will see him as a manly man. That’s just their definition of manliness, I guess, but I don’t think that a man who shares in the decision-making with his partner should feel any less a man than the man who tells his woman what to do, rather than asking. Now maybe some women like being told what to do, and that’s fine, but what you have in Nineteenth Century America is all these different cultures coming together, with these different expectations about the roles of men and women, and this is what we see in Gone with the Wind.

In the opening sequences to Gone with the Wind, we are introduced to O’Hara’s, a plantation family in Georgia, just before the outbreak of the American Civil War. It soon becomes clear that in this Irish immigrant family, it’s the women who rule the roost. The movie follows the O’Hara’s daughter Scarlett, and her eventual marriage to our dandy Rhett Butler. Now Butler isn’t one to be bossed around by a woman, and this is perhaps why he is not seen as effeminate in the popular culture, despite his fancy clothes and all; nevertheless, he finds himself in a marriage to a woman coming from a very matriarchal arrangement. It’s obviously a recipe for a dysfunctional relationship.

my friendi wish if that was as simple as described. in The deepes sense, Rousseau’s charm, carried ovr to the feud between the provencialism of Van Gogh, nd the tropical escapism of Gaugin. I still think the aesthetic of it exceeds the political masturbation of nihilistic simulation, but at an rate, this escapism into imagery, is wrought with civilizational guilt. Wagner said this. And rightly so. At the same time, such escapism is pregnant with the subliminal awareness of the laat bastion of the romantic idiom, the last stage, of the evolving Paradiso, of which not Mamma, but Pappa tech as responsigle for. As far as monkeys are concerned, the entropic decline parallels role play, whereby the mystical union of the conquered with the conquero becomes manifest, and the hunter becomes the hunted through such so called mystery.
But its rather simple really, as Sandra reminds us, there is a discreet charm in all of ths, not unlike of the burgeois notions of self discovery before the fall.

The simplicity is astounding, and if this is any ref. at all to a gay science, it woud not at all be surprising, as can be attested from probably deliberately set allusions, implicating most, if any. However nowedays, this is all mundane to the most regressed.

This makes sense, considering that Louisiana used to be French, of course.

Effeminate is not the same as feminized. And I never meant it literally. I didn’t say the French were gay, nor did I mean that they actually let the English sodomize them. This should have been obvious.

::

On a different note, does anyone know who this Sandra person is?

She-Sander=Ona-Sandra, in Slavic.

10665248_837081256347357_299033860016099438_n.jpg960×720 105 KB

Well Waterloo wasn’t exactly a hand-job, Saully.

That may yet, (still) be an overuse to indicate power shift among the natives, or power grab may be a better term. The shifts and vagrancies of fotune. Rather, the delicacies lost , gone, with th wind,
as Rhett Butler said, ‘I don’t give a damn’. But

La’Revolution started much earlir then that, by our
Yours truly, the Yankees, at the Treaty pf Paris. The

Americanization of thr world started then.
Watterloo was a regional affair, but world authority
was finshed, the age of the empires a thing of the
past, maybe only in metaphorical terms. The US distaste for metaphor, is presently supplemented. France is reactionary and resonates sentiment.

Buggery of inversion just follows predictable, contradictory logical elements. Way back
Lautremont , and De’Sade predicted it…

Sartre even canonized Genet for it. But then, the rape of Europa was an inception starting on the wrong foot, anyway. It’s not an exclusively French affair.