('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
I knew of JR Molloy before I met him on this list, because I met him on another one, the humbly self-labeled "genius list" (reachable through the Thinking Man's Minefield). This list is ruled by three Aussie friends (Dan Rowden, Kevin Solway and David Quinn) who call themselves and each other enlightened sages engaged in the subtle and sophisticated pursuit of lofty Truth, and under such a guise, spew forth as unquestionable gospel a bizarre smorgasbord of misogynistic sexism, racism, homophobia, antiscience-ism, anti-intellectualism, anti-academia, ludditism, and a nauseating mix of bad pseudobuddhism and worse pseudoexistentialism. To give you a better idea of how irreparably warped these individuals are, their genius list patron saint is a fellow by the name of Otto Weininger, who wrote a hate-filled, viciously bigoted screed he titled SEX AND CHARACTER that was so viciously anti-woman, anti-oriental, anti-black and anti-semitic that it was a critical and popular failure !
even in late nineteenth century Austria, and the dismayed little twerp responded by committing suicide in 1903, at the age of 23. People there generally either become drooling sycophants of these three, or they leave in disgust. I followed a third course; every time these paragons of self-and-each-other-praising dense obtuseness would trot their sick, demented and twisted offal out, I would debunk it in extremely uncomplimentary terms. This got me thrown off that list, an ejection I still wear proudly as a badge of honor.
Here is an extended quote from SEX AND CHARACTER (pp. 301-30e), furnished only so you may judge the character of its author, and through this, judge the character of people who would claim him as their patron saint:
It would not be surprising if to many it should seem from the foregoing arguments that "men" have come out of them too well, and, as a collective body, have been placed on an exaggeratedly lofty pedestal. The conclusions drawn from these arguments, however surprised every Philistine and young simpleton would be to learn that in himself he comprises the whole world, cannot be opposed and confuted by cheap reasoning; yet the treatment of the male sex must not simply be considered too indulgent, or due to a direct tendency to omit all the repulsive and small side of manhood in order to favorably represent its best points.
The accusation would be unjustified. It does not enter the author's mind to idealize man in order more easily to lower the estimation of woman. So much narrowness and so much coarseness often thrive beneath the empirical representation of manhood that it is a question of the bettwer possibilities lying in every man, neglected by him or perceived either with painful clearness or dull animousity; possibilities which as such in woman neither actually nor meditatively come to any account. And here the author cannot in any wise really rely on the dissimilarities between men, however little he may impugn their importance. It is, therefore, a question of establishing what woman is not, and truly in her there is infinitely much wanting which is never quite missing even in the most mediocre and plebian of men. That which is the positive attribute of the woman, in so far as a positive can be spoken of in regard to such a being, will constantly be found also in many men. There!
are, as has already often been demonstrated, men who have become women or have remained women; but there is no woman who has surpassed certain circumscribed, not particularly elevated moral and intellectual limits. And, therefore, I must again assert that the woman of the highest standard is immeasurably beneath the man of lowest standard.
These objections may go even further and touch a point where the ignoring of theory must assuredly become reprehensible. There are, to wit, nations and races whose men, though they can in no wise be regarded as intermediate forms of the sexes, are found to approach so slightly and so rarely to the ideals of manhood as set forth in my argument, that the principles, indeed the entire foundation upon which this work rests, would seem to be severely shaken by their existence. What shall we make, for example, oot of the Chinese, with their feminine freedom from internal cravings and their incapacity for every effort? One might be tempted to believe in the complete effiminacy of the whole race. It can at least be no mere whim of the entire nation that the Chinaman habitually wears a pigtail, and that the growth of his beard is of the very thinnest. But how does the amtter stand with the negroes? A genius has perhaps scarcely ever appeared amongst the negroes, and the stan!
dard of their morality is almost universally so low that it is beginning to be acknowledged in America that their emancipation was an act of imprudence.
(skip paragraph)
The Jewish race, which has been chosen by me as a subject of discussion, because, as will be shown, it presents the gravest and most formidable difficulties for my views, appears to possess a certain anthropological relationship with both negroes and Mongolians. The readily curling hair points to the negro; admixture of Mongolian blood is suggested by the perfectly Chinese or Malay formation of face and skull which is so often to be met with amongst the Jews and which is associated with a yellowish complexion.
And so on.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT