Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
The messiah Michel Foucault of the woke brigade that is infecting our lives more so than covid19 is a paedophile, they use the word pederast, why I don’t know, the word was created by the ruling class to imply a difference between a paedophile and one who "only" has sex with teens, we know this depravity is a slippery slope to younger kids based on the hormonal profiles of paedo‘s, a teens prefrontal cortex is still growing and is generally formed to reasonable level at 18, before this their intelligence is limited, this is the case that needs to be made against paedo‘s going forward.
It’s not like we can trust the "pedarest" who claims to be solely attracted to teens because he was caught with teens, this is nothing more than a legal ploy for a lighter sentence.

Foucault was another obsessed with sex, Freud believed libido drives all, this is incorrect and a common mistake amongst the ruling class types, libido is number 2 in human drives, food and bioenergetic capacity is number one, being able to farm the land to acquire energy for the luxury of sex, the ruling class types suffer this fallacy/delusion because their resources are in place, resources are so familiar they have become invisible to them. Keep in mind in spite of an abundance of resource they still were incoherent bioenergetically speaking, they would have less stress to a certain extent if they didn’t poison themselves with alcohol, drugs and bad food.

They then proceed to entertain their sexual depravities and use said resources to get others to engage in said depravity.
Now what do we see today, the woke brigade are mainly middle class, in fact many folks quality of life today is far better than the past outside the homeless, their expectations are not been met so we get infantile rage and narcissism, the thing is with the woke middle class their resources are in abundance, inheritance is on the way so now they are focused on sex, just like Foucault it’s the depraved kind because they are incoherent bioenergetically from bad choices.

You may state the obvious and say we are sexually liberated in the west and have been for some time, so what gives? Most of the woke are verbose about sex rather than engaging in sex, many of them are not physically attractive, this isn’t a cheap shot, it’s an observable form within reality, we also know there is hormonal incoherency in society at large from SSRI use to contraception, because of this they need depravity to get aroused just like Foucault, they want depravity normalized and that means paedophilia, they were never going to come right out and say it, it’s gradual.
It’s even more interesting that this woke brigade were sent into overdrive not long after Jeffrey Epstein the child sex trafficker got arrested, it would explain why the ruling class support the woke so much, we know of course it’s multifaceted why the woke are pumped daily in the media, cover for banks bailouts, a cover for neo-colonialism, clickbait etc




Given that Foucault died of Aids and a series of biographies have not disguised his promiscuity, readers might expect some kind of self-revelation, or at least a self-justification, in this valedictory volume from beyond the grave. If so, they will be disappointed. But this book does offer insights into its elusive author, even if that was not his intention. Like the Marquis de Sade, whom he revered as the patron saint of libertines, Foucault studied the Christian theologians only to conclude from their diabolical view of human nature “that God created most men simply with a view to crowding Hell”.

It is possible that Foucault might have reverted to the question of how certain practices came to be viewed as perversions. For all the relativism, amoralism, even nihilism, that pervade his oeuvre like the odour of black leather, Foucault could not let Christian morality go.

Today, Foucault scholars and editors prefer to pass over his advocacy of pederasty in silence. It is striking that the volume of his Essential Worksentitled Ethics includes many interviews, but not one he gave in 1978. There he argued that it was “quite unacceptable” and an “abuse” to assume “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent” to sex with an adult. (Note that Foucault takes it for granted that the child will be a boy.)

It is a matter of public record, however, that Foucault signed a petition to the Assemblée Nationale in 1977 calling for the decriminalisation of all “consensual” sexual relations between adults and children. Foucault was impressed by the fact that the Greeks “never admitted love between two adult men … [for them] love between two men is only valid in the form of classic pederasty”. He even told his biographer James Miller: “Besides, to die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful?” For Foucault, pederasty was the only truly romantic form of love.

To this day, France — unlike most other European countries — has no law that treats sex between adults and minors automatically as rape. Hence it is, and has always been, possible under French law for children of 13 and over to consent to sex, which means that adults can only be charged with sexual assault, not rape. Moreover, a statute of limitations means that those who were abused as children can only bring charges until the age of 48. Paedophilia has in practice seldom been prosecuted in France. Indeed, sexual “liberation” for children was a fashionable cause among some leaders of the May 1968 protests, notably Daniel Cohn-Bendit (“Danny le Rouge”).

If Foucault were alive today, even at the age of 94 he would most likely face protests, if not prosecution. The is no sign that the public, even in France, is ready to entertain the philosopher’s special pleading on behalf of paedophilia. If anything, revulsion against the sexualisation of adolescence is stronger in France than ever before. Where children are concerned, the prophet of pederasty has completely failed to overturn Judaeo-Christian morality. Given the choice between Athens and Jerusalem, we have chosen the latter. What one might call Foucault’s pendulum has swung back against the libertines.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
Let's not forget in France, any person with a criminal record is allowed by law to enter politics, incredibly.
 

Quelsatron

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
484
Let's not forget in France, any person with a criminal record is allowed by law to enter politics, incredibly.
oops seems like you were about to enter politics as a lone agent with great popular backing, what a shame you were convicted of a crime on loose evidential grounds :)))))))
 

mayku-T-meelo

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
188
I always found it interesting how the confessions in the Roman Catholic Church are structurally identical to the talking therapy that was "invented" by Freud. In both cases, in consequence, there is this suppression of the creative individual drive to better fit in within the higher order of things. In the case of Church it's shaming the sexuality and in the course of psychoanalytic tradition it's radically shifting the rhetoric to openly talk about everything. I suppose one way or the other this leads to extreme perversions, because as it was mentioned, sexuality is of secondary importance, rather than at the very root of things. I would say that the perversions are happening because of stressed position, one feels trapped inside the structure and is looking for a quick relief or temporary freedom from the strict rules. In one instance you are serving the hierarchical institution of Church and in other it's hierarchical ownership organization. In both instances a subject sees and feels the pressure of arbitrary rules that serve those above that are privileged. Those rules must not be talked about openly or they have to be talked about to the point of talking in circles with no shift. If one wants to keep the privileges, by either strategy, the bad conscience sets in place and immobilizes a person from real change, so the violence that was inflicted upon a person is being then repeated by that person, just switching the apparent form and depriving a person of energy to step out I guess.

I remember I saw a French movie on TV once, Murmur of the Heart, back from the seventies and it surprised me how liberal the storyline was, but given the context of the time it makes sense.

 
OP
Drareg

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I always found it interesting how the confessions in the Roman Catholic Church are structurally identical to the talking therapy that was "invented" by Freud. In both cases, in consequence, there is this suppression of the creative individual drive to better fit in within the higher order of things. In the case of Church it's shaming the sexuality and in the course of psychoanalytic tradition it's radically shifting the rhetoric to openly talk about everything. I suppose one way or the other this leads to extreme perversions, because as it was mentioned, sexuality is of secondary importance, rather than at the very root of things. I would say that the perversions are happening because of stressed position, one feels trapped inside the structure and is looking for a quick relief or temporary freedom from the strict rules. In one instance you are serving the hierarchical institution of Church and in other it's hierarchical ownership organization. In both instances a subject sees and feels the pressure of arbitrary rules that serve those above that are privileged. Those rules must not be talked about openly or they have to be talked about to the point of talking in circles with no shift. If one wants to keep the privileges, by either strategy, the bad conscience sets in place and immobilizes a person from real change, so the violence that was inflicted upon a person is being then repeated by that person, just switching the apparent form and depriving a person of energy to step out I guess.

I remember I saw a French movie on TV once, Murmur of the Heart, back from the seventies and it surprised me how liberal the storyline was, but given the context of the time it makes sense.


Well said, I think the stress is measurable, haidut done an interview recently talking about the hormone profile of incoherent sexuality.
What the Catholic Church were/are at with celibacy rules is beyond me, maybe many centuries ago there was alot of asexual males about and they veered into this cult, reading the Bible it makes no sense for them to behave in a celibate manner let alone shame people for it.
Asexuality should have a hormone profile also, it’s a depressive state, the self flagellation of priests is an example of a depressive state, like a prolonged self harming exercise.
 

mayku-T-meelo

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
188
Could you please link this interview?

I think the celibacy was primarily set up to hold the wealth in the company. It's also not surprising when you see all sex scandals coming from the church. Hiding it from the public builds up the sexual tension. Those high in the hierarchy are doing it because of excessive sense of safety, those that are lower were often victims of the abuse themselves. Some of them have no problem with abstaining from opposite sex and get plenty of satisfaction inside church and I think are not really depressed in the strict sense of harming themselves. But there are also plenty of cases of abusive pedophilia that then perpetuates, one could argue mainly because of the ideology centralized around sin.


This book came out two years ago, haven't read it really, but I saw a documentary once showing the gay night life of Italian priests. They went out partying to gay clubs, had an orgy after party and then in the morning went straight to the morning mass.

I agree that the asexual person could usually be described as a depressed organism, but what about the idea of sublimation? In the sense that you could use the unused sexual energy for mental or other physical activity? I tend to to think that it's a matter of intention that makes the difference. If the chastity is being imposed from the outside as a strict moral value, it's bound to backfire. But also does the free for all approach.

Someone who experiences sexual energy, someone who can experience arousal and is not asexual, but abstains from sex or any other release of present tension, has to have a really good faith in himself and others in the first place, while persisting in abstinence. To avoid harming himself and the others, and to use the excessive energy for some benefit. Or could it be that the unreleased tension always results in some sort of excitotoxicity and stress?
 
OP
Drareg

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Could you please link this interview?

I think the celibacy was primarily set up to hold the wealth in the company. It's also not surprising when you see all sex scandals coming from the church. Hiding it from the public builds up the sexual tension. Those high in the hierarchy are doing it because of excessive sense of safety, those that are lower were often victims of the abuse themselves. Some of them have no problem with abstaining from opposite sex and get plenty of satisfaction inside church and I think are not really depressed in the strict sense of harming themselves. But there are also plenty of cases of abusive pedophilia that then perpetuates, one could argue mainly because of the ideology centralized around sin.


This book came out two years ago, haven't read it really, but I saw a documentary once showing the gay night life of Italian priests. They went out partying to gay clubs, had an orgy after party and then in the morning went straight to the morning mass.

I agree that the asexual person could usually be described as a depressed organism, but what about the idea of sublimation? In the sense that you could use the unused sexual energy for mental or other physical activity? I tend to to think that it's a matter of intention that makes the difference. If the chastity is being imposed from the outside as a strict moral value, it's bound to backfire. But also does the free for all approach.

Someone who experiences sexual energy, someone who can experience arousal and is not asexual, but abstains from sex or any other release of present tension, has to have a really good faith in himself and others in the first place, while persisting in abstinence. To avoid harming himself and the others, and to use the excessive energy for some benefit. Or could it be that the unreleased tension always results in some sort of excitotoxicity and stress?

Im not surprised if they are attending gay orgies, same with other religious leaders globally.

I think Haidut done a interview recently where they were speaking about "no fap" and how the build up is good for maybe a week but longer than that it can cause biological issues.
I think if the resources are available most mammals would mate year round, exhausting yourself may deplete bioenergetic resources and lower libido but this seems close to a stress like exertion required like you mention, I doubt anyone who preaches abstinence has a coherent libido, if they have a coherent libido it’s likely they are masturbating, if you have lower libido or hormonal incoherence you can probably last a long time.

The free for all approach is a slippery slope to depravity, it’s practiced in contemporary times because resources are easier to acquire, this stands globally even in 3rd world nations, their access to resources is still likely better than the past.
 

PolishSun

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
447
To have sex a person must have good levels of hormones (like old people, or sick people, or children do not have those hormones). If a person is under stress those sex hormones will not be made, but instead stress hormones will be made. And cholesterol and other material will be used up for stress hormones. What I want to say is, if someone is on strict diet, he might not want to have sex, but as well he would not be stressed. Because he is not having enough cholesterol to make hormones. I knew two people who were peaceful and not aggressive at all, and I liked that, but they died after a couple of years, what would suggest that they just were not making stress hormones anymore.
 

kyle

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
399
The rates of these crimes in the church arent significantly different than other relgious groups or public schools.

A lot of the "normal" people that were pursuing religous orders left when the church opened itself up to the influence of psychology in the belief it needed to "modernize."

Some of the ideas they would have encountered were the new science of paychology, where the importance of sex to mental health features prominently.

In turn, many people would have left pursuing religious orders leaving those without normal desire to form families. Some traditionalist Catholics say this led to a velvet mafia taking over a lot power in the church and involved in all sorts of scandals.

To attribute deviancy to celibacy is well - the kind of idea that psychologists came up with.

Foucault was not celibate but his deviancy ruled his life and thoughts
 

kyle

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
399
Somebody with predatory drives didn't wake up one day like that because they were being celibate.

It's the complete opposite. They indulge and indulge in their passions and they grow more and more addicted to it and the crimes grow more outrageous.

The idea celibacy causes crimes like this is just a way to undermine public sense of morality and stop anyone from finding the root causes.
 
OP
Drareg

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
Somebody with predatory drives didn't wake up one day like that because they were being celibate.

It's the complete opposite. They indulge and indulge in their passions and they grow more and more addicted to it and the crimes grow more outrageous.

The idea celibacy causes crimes like this is just a way to undermine public sense of morality and stop anyone from finding the root causes.
I cover what you mention.
I’m not stating celibacy would cause these issues outright, it’s obviously multifaceted.
Very few people are likely to be sincerely celibate, they are masturbating or engaging in sex, nobody will admit this, males in particular.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
193
Location
London, United Kingdom
The messiah Michel Foucault of the woke brigade that is infecting our lives more so than covid19 is a paedophile, they use the word pederast, why I don’t know, the word was created by the ruling class to imply a difference between a paedophile and one who "only" has sex with teens, we know this depravity is a slippery slope to younger kids based on the hormonal profiles of paedo‘s, a teens prefrontal cortex is still growing and is generally formed to reasonable level at 18, before this their intelligence is limited, this is the case that needs to be made against paedo‘s going forward.
It’s not like we can trust the "pedarest" who claims to be solely attracted to teens because he was caught with teens, this is nothing more than a legal ploy for a lighter sentence.

Foucault was another obsessed with sex, Freud believed libido drives all, this is incorrect and a common mistake amongst the ruling class types, libido is number 2 in human drives, food and bioenergetic capacity is number one, being able to farm the land to acquire energy for the luxury of sex, the ruling class types suffer this fallacy/delusion because their resources are in place, resources are so familiar they have become invisible to them. Keep in mind in spite of an abundance of resource they still were incoherent bioenergetically speaking, they would have less stress to a certain extent if they didn’t poison themselves with alcohol, drugs and bad food.

They then proceed to entertain their sexual depravities and use said resources to get others to engage in said depravity.
Now what do we see today, the woke brigade are mainly middle class, in fact many folks quality of life today is far better than the past outside the homeless, their expectations are not been met so we get infantile rage and narcissism, the thing is with the woke middle class their resources are in abundance, inheritance is on the way so now they are focused on sex, just like Foucault it’s the depraved kind because they are incoherent bioenergetically from bad choices.

You may state the obvious and say we are sexually liberated in the west and have been for some time, so what gives? Most of the woke are verbose about sex rather than engaging in sex, many of them are not physically attractive, this isn’t a cheap shot, it’s an observable form within reality, we also know there is hormonal incoherency in society at large from SSRI use to contraception, because of this they need depravity to get aroused just like Foucault, they want depravity normalized and that means paedophilia, they were never going to come right out and say it, it’s gradual.
It’s even more interesting that this woke brigade were sent into overdrive not long after Jeffrey Epstein the child sex trafficker got arrested, it would explain why the ruling class support the woke so much, we know of course it’s multifaceted why the woke are pumped daily in the media, cover for banks bailouts, a cover for neo-colonialism, clickbait etc




Given that Foucault died of Aids and a series of biographies have not disguised his promiscuity, readers might expect some kind of self-revelation, or at least a self-justification, in this valedictory volume from beyond the grave. If so, they will be disappointed. But this book does offer insights into its elusive author, even if that was not his intention. Like the Marquis de Sade, whom he revered as the patron saint of libertines, Foucault studied the Christian theologians only to conclude from their diabolical view of human nature “that God created most men simply with a view to crowding Hell”.

It is possible that Foucault might have reverted to the question of how certain practices came to be viewed as perversions. For all the relativism, amoralism, even nihilism, that pervade his oeuvre like the odour of black leather, Foucault could not let Christian morality go.

Today, Foucault scholars and editors prefer to pass over his advocacy of pederasty in silence. It is striking that the volume of his Essential Worksentitled Ethics includes many interviews, but not one he gave in 1978. There he argued that it was “quite unacceptable” and an “abuse” to assume “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent” to sex with an adult. (Note that Foucault takes it for granted that the child will be a boy.)

It is a matter of public record, however, that Foucault signed a petition to the Assemblée Nationale in 1977 calling for the decriminalisation of all “consensual” sexual relations between adults and children. Foucault was impressed by the fact that the Greeks “never admitted love between two adult men … [for them] love between two men is only valid in the form of classic pederasty”. He even told his biographer James Miller: “Besides, to die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful?” For Foucault, pederasty was the only truly romantic form of love.

To this day, France — unlike most other European countries — has no law that treats sex between adults and minors automatically as rape. Hence it is, and has always been, possible under French law for children of 13 and over to consent to sex, which means that adults can only be charged with sexual assault, not rape. Moreover, a statute of limitations means that those who were abused as children can only bring charges until the age of 48. Paedophilia has in practice seldom been prosecuted in France. Indeed, sexual “liberation” for children was a fashionable cause among some leaders of the May 1968 protests, notably Daniel Cohn-Bendit (“Danny le Rouge”).

If Foucault were alive today, even at the age of 94 he would most likely face protests, if not prosecution. The is no sign that the public, even in France, is ready to entertain the philosopher’s special pleading on behalf of paedophilia. If anything, revulsion against the sexualisation of adolescence is stronger in France than ever before. Where children are concerned, the prophet of pederasty has completely failed to overturn Judaeo-Christian morality. Given the choice between Athens and Jerusalem, we have chosen the latter. What one might call Foucault’s pendulum has swung back against the libertines.
Brilliant post
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom