Wealthy women that dress and behave like streetwalkers...

griffin said:
Guys (and gals), get a grip. Please, it's 2016 already. The sexual revolution was way back in the '60s and '70s. The CIA ran its projects then involving Hippies, Acid, Laurel Canyon, Rock & Roll, Grateful Dead and so much more, everything in American popular culture for 50-plus years was under control.

As someone has already mentioned in this thread, _http://vigilantcitizen.com/ has this well covered, if you're willing to subscribe to his unique flavor of Masonic Illuminati paranoia. It is an acquired taste.

And a guy named Dave McGowan dug into that and published a website for a few years, but then he died and his articles have been taken offline. However, you can still buy the book (from his estate): _http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/order-books/ .

Lately, a guy named Miles Mathis has been reviewing the depredations of the intelligence services, though his interests are oriented more towards visual arts than popular culture, since he's an artist. His website is: _http://mileswmathis.com/ . I didn't disable that link, because he strikes me as sincere, but if you are going to read his work, just be aware that he's an iconoclast and somewhat of a rebel, and he has some views that might be rather controversial and make some folks very uncomfortable.

But, as I said... get a grip, people. Let me tell you a true story. Maybe it will make sense in the whole.

I attended a very exclusive college in the US Pacific Northwest, partly because I got excellent grades in high school and had near-perfect SAT scores, and partly due to (complicated) family connections.

In my first year at college, the school's radio station published a remarkable calendar. What was so remarkable about it was the cover, which was a photo of a reclining nude female, seen from the rear. It was actually quite innocent, especially by today's standards, but at the time it was seen as "risque".

I won't name the girl who posed for the cover, but several years on, I met her, and she talked me into taking her mountain climbing, because I was accomplished at that and she wanted to go climb things.

At the time, she was working casually as an "exotic dancer", taking $5 tips from drunks in suburban bars for walking around and dancing naked, which didn't bother her, because she was scandinavian!

I figured this out when we drove up a river to a campground 25 miles from town, and she was happy to strip and go swimming naked. I wasn't her boyfriend then, or ever, but she wasn't shy in facing me.

For her, whatever men thought or felt, looking at her body, had nothing to do with her. She took their money, which they freely gave her, and she regarded that exchange as simply a way to pay her rent.

(We tried to climb a couple of things, but didn't. I guess I didn't fully trust her, I don't know. She finally got a couple of science degrees, did some impressive rock climbing. Her climbing partner fell on lead and died, in the Rockies. Maybe somehow I saw that coming decades earlier, when she was with me.)

Everyone (each one of you) is responsible for their own sexuality - and how they (you) express that - but not for that of other people. You are *not* responsible for how Beyonce wraps her flesh in plastic. She is responsible for that, and if she's happy, it's cool. Don't get bent out of shape about other folks.

Love yourself, your family, your friends.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the discussion in hand. Are you saying we're all prudes?
 
Windmill knight said:
I agree as well. I get somewhat annoyed when confronted with the moral relativist position, because to me it sounds like a narrative to justify whatever the relativist's desires are.

Plus, relativists are essentially saying, "How dare you! You people SHOULD be moral relativists!" Which is pretty funny, because that's a moral judgment. In a roundabout way it reminds me of that motivational poster for introverts to "unite! alone! in your own room!"

I think the fact that moral relativism is fundamentally self-contradictory just goes to show that you're right: it's simply a narrative, a rationalization to justify what even the moral relativists know on some level is objectively wrong, but which they WANT and do not have the moral fibre to combat in themselves.
 
The themes in this excerpt from one of Gurdjieff’s talks, taken from In Search of the Miraculous, tie in very well with the ideas being discussed here:

[quote author="In Search of the Miraculous"]
G. began one of the following talks with the fact that we forget about the difficulties of our position.

"You often think in a very naive way," he said. "You already think you can do. To get rid of this conviction is more difficult than anything else for a man. You do not understand all the complexity of your organization and you do not realize that every effort, in addition to the results desired, even if it gives these, gives thousands of unexpected and often undesirable results, and the chief thing that you forget is that you are not beginning from the beginning with a nice clean, new machine. There stand behind you many years of a wrong and stupid life, of indulgence in every kind of weakness, of shutting your eyes to your own errors, of striving to avoid all unpleasant truths, of constant lying to yourselves, of self-justification, of blaming others, and so on, and so on. All this cannot help affecting the machine. The machine is dirty, in places it is rusty, and in some places artificial appliances have been formed, the necessity for which has been created by its own wrong way of working.

"These artificial appliances will now interfere very much with all your good intentions.

"They are called 'buffers.'

" 'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.

"Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily. The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions. If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different I's of our personality are to one another. If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. It is not pleasant to anyone to feel that he is mad. Moreover, a thought such as this deprives a man of self-confidence, weakens his energy, deprives him of 'self-respect.' Somehow or other he must master this thought or banish it. He must either destroy contradictions or cease to see and to feel them. A man cannot destroy contradictions. But if 'buffers' are created in him he can cease to feel them and he will not feel the impact from the clash of contradictory views, contradictory emotions, contradictory words.

"'Buffers' are created slowly and gradually. Very many 'buffers' are created artificially through 'education.' Others are created under the hypnotic influence of all surrounding life. A man is surrounded by people who live, speak, think, and feel by means of 'buffers.' Imitating them in their opinions, actions, and words, a man involuntarily creates similar 'buffers' in himself. 'Buffers' make a man's life more easy. It is very hard to live without 'buffers.' But they keep man from the possibility of inner development because 'buffers' are made to lessen shocks and it is only shocks that can lead a man out of the state in which he lives, that is, waken him. 'Buffers' lull a man to sleep, give him the agreeable and peaceful sensation that all will be well, that no contradictions exist and that he can sleep in peace. 'Buffers' are appliances by means of -which a man can always be in the right. 'Buffers' help a man not to feel his conscience.

" 'Conscience' is again a term that needs explanation.

"In ordinary life the concept 'conscience' is taken too simply. As if we had a conscience. Actually the concept 'conscience' in the sphere of the emotions is equivalent to the concept 'consciousness' in the sphere of the intellect. And as we have no consciousness we have no conscience.

"Consciousness is a state in which a man knows all at once everything that he in general knows and in which he can see how little he does know and how many contradictions there are in what he knows.

"Conscience is a state in which a man feels all at once everything that he in general feels, or can feel. And as everyone has within him thousands of contradictory feelings which vary from a deeply hidden realization of his own nothingness and fears of all kinds to the most stupid kind of self-conceit, self-confidence, self-satisfaction, and self-praise, to feel all this together would not only be painful but literally unbearable.

"If a man whose entire inner world is composed of contradictions were suddenly to feel all these contradictions simultaneously within himself, if he were to feel all at once that he loves everything he hates and hates everything he loves; that he lies when he tells the truth and that he tells the truth when he lies; and if he could feel the shame and horror of it all, this would be the state which is called 'conscience. A man cannot live in this state; he must either destroy contradictions or destroy conscience. He cannot destroy conscience, but if he cannot destroy it he can put it to sleep, that is, he can separate by impenetrable barriers one feeling of self from another, never see them together, never feel their incompatibility, the absurdity of one existing alongside another.

"But fortunately for man, that is, for his peace and for his sleep, this state of conscience is very rare. From early childhood 'buffers' begin to grow and strengthen in him, taking from him the possibility of seeing his inner contradictions and therefore, for him, there is no danger whatever of a sudden awakening. Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves and work on themselves for a very long time and very persistently in order to attain it. For this it is necessary to destroy 'buffers,' that is, to go out to meet all those inner sufferings which are connected with the sensations of contradictions. Moreover the destruction of 'buffers' in itself requires very long work and a man must agree to this work realizing that the result of his work will be every possible discomfort and suffering from the awakening of his conscience.

"But conscience is the fire which alone can fuse all the powders in the glass retort which was mentioned before and create the unity which a man lacks in that state in which he begins to study himself.

"The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.'

"Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.' From the point of view of understanding the different categories of man we may say that there exists the conscience of a man in whom there are no contradictions. This conscience is not suffering; on the contrary it is joy of a totally new character which we are unable to understand. But even a momentary awakening of conscience in a man who has thousands of different I's is bound to involve suffering. And if these moments of conscience become longer and if a man does not fear them but on the contrary cooperates with them and tries to keep and prolong them, an element of very subtle joy, a foretaste of the future 'clear consciousness' will gradually enter into these moments.

"There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon. It consists of various 'taboos,' that is, restrictions, and various demands, sometimes sensible in their basis and sometimes having lost all meaning or never even having had any meaning, and having been created on a false basis, on a soil of superstition and false fears.

"Morality consists of 'buffers.' And since 'buffers' are of various kinds, and as the conditions of life in different countries and in different ages or among different classes of society vary considerably, so the morality created by them is also very dissimilar and contradictory. A morality common to all does not exist. It is even impossible to say that there exists any general idea of morality, for instance, in Europe. It is said sometimes that the general morality for Europe is 'Christian morality.' But first of all the idea of 'Christian morality' itself admits of very many different interpretations and many different crimes have been justified by 'Christian morality.' And in the second place modern Europe has very little in common with 'Christian morality,' no matter how we understand this morality.

"In any case, if 'Christian morality' brought Europe to the war which is now going on, then it would be as well to be as far as possible from such morality,"

"Many people say that they do not understand the moral side of your teaching," said one of us. "And others say that your teaching has no morality at all."

"Of course not," said G. "People are very fond of talking about morality. But morality is merely self-suggestion. What is necessary is conscience. We do not teach morality. We teach how to find conscience. People are not pleased when we say this. They say that we have no love. Simply because we do not encourage weakness and hypocrisy but, on the contrary, take off all masks. He who desires the truth will not speak of love or of Christianity because he knows how far he is from these. Christian teaching is for Christians. And Christians are those who live, that is, who do everything, according to Christ's precepts. Can they who talk of love and morality live according to Christ's precepts? Of course they cannot; but there will always be talk of this kind, there will always be people to whom words are more precious than anything else. But this is a true sign! He who speaks like this is an empty man; it is not worth while wasting time on him.

"Morality and conscience are quite different things. One conscience can never contradict another conscience. One morality can always very easily contradict and completely deny another. A man with 'buffers' may be very moral. And 'buffers' can be very different, that is, two very moral men may consider each other very immoral. As a rule it is almost inevitably so. The more 'moral' a man is, the more 'immoral' does he think other moral people.

"The idea of morality is connected with the idea of good and evil conduct. But the idea of good and evil is always different for different people, always subjective in man number one, number two, and number three, and is connected only with a given moment or a given situation. A subjective man can have no general concept of good and evil. For a subjective man evil is everything that is opposed to his desires or interests or to his conception of good.

"One may say that evil does not exist for subjective man at all, that there exist only different conceptions of good. Nobody ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody acts in the interests of good, as he understands it. But everybody understands it in a different way. Consequently men drown, slay, and kill one another in the interests of good. The reason is again just the same, men's ignorance and the deep sleep in which they live.

"This is so obvious that it even seems strange that people have never thought of it before. However, the fact remains that they fail to understand this and everyone considers his good as the only good and all the rest as evil. It is naive and useless to hope that men will ever understand this and that they will evolve a general and identical idea of good."

"But do not good and evil exist in themselves apart from man?" asked someone present.

"They do," said G., "only this is very far away from us and it is not worth your while even to try to understand this at present. Simply remember one thing. The only possible permanent idea of good and evil for man is connected with the idea of evolution; not with mechanical evolution, of course, but with the idea of man's development through conscious efforts, the change of his being, the creation of unity in him, and the formation of a permanent I.

"A permanent idea of good and evil can be formed in man only in connection with a permanent aim and a permanent understanding. If a man understands that he is asleep and if he wishes to awake, then everything that helps him to awake will be good and everything that hinders him, everything that prolongs his sleep, will be evil. Exactly in the same way will he understand what is good and evil for other people. What helps them to awake is good, what hinders them is evil. But this is so only for those who want to awake, that is, for those who understand that they are asleep. Those who do not understand that they are asleep and those who can have no wish to awake, cannot have understanding of good and evil. And as the overwhelming majority of people do not realize and will never realize that they are asleep, neither good nor evil can actually exist for them.

"This contradicts generally accepted ideas. People are accustomed to think that good and evil must be the same for everyone, and above all that good and evil exist for everyone. In reality, however, good and evil exist only for a few, for those who have an aim and who pursue that aim. Then what hinders the pursuit of that aim is evil and what helps is good.

"But of course most sleeping people will say that they have an aim and that they are going somewhere. The realization of the fact that he has no aim and that he is not going anywhere is the first sign of the approaching awakening of a man or of awakening becoming really possible for him. Awakening begins when a man realizes that he is going nowhere and does not know where to go.
[/quote]
 
And another celebrity that dresses like streetwalker. :rolleyes:

http://superzena.b92.net/zivoti-poznatih.php?yyyy=2016&mm=06&nav_id=1147957
 
Just wow. She appears to be proud of her look, dolling for the photographer.
 
[quote author= Windmill knight]So, is what Beyoncé is doing in those videos wrong? Well, she is free to experience her own sexuality any way she chooses to as long as she does it privately and doesn't hurt anyone. But because she is making a public statement about it, she is promoting an idea which is harmful to the normal human being. So yes, it's wrong.[/quote]

I think so to, Beyoncé and many in her business promotes the same toxicity.

It’s the way how we treat and look at each other only based only on how the body looks and how much is shown. Apparently that's all what others can mean for us and we for them.

No signs of truly caring and love in sight.
 
Back
Top Bottom