I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[FlashDangerpants]

Liberals are missing the point, again...

Let's simplify, Liberalism, referring to Liberty/Liberation/Freeing:

On Sexuality, Liberalism means 'freeing' sexuality from the "Constraints" of Heterosexual intercourse. Instead of seeking intercourse for it's Natural purpose, children/reproduction, Liberals posit that Sex is for its "own sake", Pleasure, Hedonism, Masturbatory. Conservatives will assert that this is Perverse because it goes from Natural to Un-natural. If Sex is "for fun", then who really cares of its method, sex with animals, corpses, same sex, etc. are all 'Equalized', hence LGTBTQMAP+, Queerdom. Sex becomes a sub-culture, a "virtue signal", proving how Avant Garde and 'sophisticated' the Novel Riche and Petite Bourgeois are. The liberals on this forum see "nothing wrong" with homosexuality, transexuality, children and teenagers "transitioning" as a result.

All in all, Liberal sex is Impotent. It produces nothing, or worse, it produces Rot, Decay, Degeneracy, Sick Minds. Society decays as a result.


On Wealth, Liberalism means Expenditure of wealth while Conservatism means Saving of wealth. Liberals spend, Conservatives save. Liberals depend upon an Inheritance which it will squander, if it becomes too liberalized and irresponsible. Or worse, Liberals spend their inheritance completely, and being unsatisfied justify the tax and theft of others' to compensate. Welfare is the result, or "Universal Healthcare", that those who are fiscally responsible, should compensate for those who are not. Those who are Healthy, ought to pay for those who are not. Does Society or The State then impose any Morality of its own? Of course not! The State makes things worse. The masses become poorer (US Debt clock) and sicker (Covid/Pandemics), until the entire system breaks.

These attitudes are widespread in all Liberals or Conservatives, respectively.


Until Liberals acquire their own assets: a House, a Vehicle, a Wife, a Family, etc. then they don't really have anything to lose in life. Liberals treat life as one big party, one big jack-off. Proof, the "SINC" or "DINC" phenomena in the West, double-income, no children.

WIth no Children, you have no Future. You go extinct.

Therefore, Liberalism is dependent upon those who do (have children).

It is a Parasitic ideology and worldview. It depends on a Host, to survive.

Yes, of course. This is why liberals outnumber psychopaths like you since you can only procreate through rape.

*Scalpy when facing an argument above his IQ level*

And ust likewizard's last companion brain cell think link was "page not found"

He's technologically illiterate, every time he puts a link to with a philosophy now page with a tag on the end such as there... /watch?v=1FV112gTPGc he's actually trying to post a youtube link, but he's too much of a cretin to manage that trick.

For some reason he's posted you a link to that Vince dude from WWE (don't tell Wizzy that WWE is scripted!) cal;ling somebody a rapist. Although seeing as that Vince guy is himself currently accused of sex crimes, I couldn't tell you if the irony is intentional. With Wizzy it usually isn't.

If you want to see it for yourself, you can usually just paste his the bit beginning /watch? into the normal yt url as so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FV112gTPGc

[Wizard22]

Liberals are missing the point, again...

Let's simplify, Liberalism, referring to Liberty/Liberation/Freeing:

On Sexuality, Liberalism means 'freeing' sexuality from the "Constraints" of Heterosexual intercourse. Instead of seeking intercourse for it's Natural purpose, children/reproduction, Liberals posit that Sex is for its "own sake", Pleasure, Hedonism, Masturbatory. Conservatives will assert that this is Perverse because it goes from Natural to Un-natural. If Sex is "for fun", then who really cares of its method, sex with animals, corpses, same sex, etc. are all 'Equalized', hence LGTBTQMAP+, Queerdom. Sex becomes a sub-culture, a "virtue signal", proving how Avant Garde and 'sophisticated' the Novel Riche and Petite Bourgeois are. The liberals on this forum see "nothing wrong" with homosexuality, transexuality, children and teenagers "transitioning" as a result.

All in all, Liberal sex is Impotent. It produces nothing, or worse, it produces Rot, Decay, Degeneracy, Sick Minds. Society decays as a result.


On Wealth, Liberalism means Expenditure of wealth while Conservatism means Saving of wealth. Liberals spend, Conservatives save. Liberals depend upon an Inheritance which it will squander, if it becomes too liberalized and irresponsible. Or worse, Liberals spend their inheritance completely, and being unsatisfied justify the tax and theft of others' to compensate. Welfare is the result, or "Universal Healthcare", that those who are fiscally responsible, should compensate for those who are not. Those who are Healthy, ought to pay for those who are not. Does Society or The State then impose any Morality of its own? Of course not! The State makes things worse. The masses become poorer (US Debt clock) and sicker (Covid/Pandemics), until the entire system breaks.

These attitudes are widespread in all Liberals or Conservatives, respectively.


Until Liberals acquire their own assets: a House, a Vehicle, a Wife, a Family, etc. then they don't really have anything to lose in life. Liberals treat life as one big party, one big jack-off. Proof, the "SINC" or "DINC" phenomena in the West, double-income, no children.

WIth no Children, you have no Future. You go extinct.

Therefore, Liberalism is dependent upon those who do (have children).

It is a Parasitic ideology and worldview. It depends on a Host, to survive.

Yes, of course. This is why liberals outnumber psychopaths like you since you can only procreate through rape.

*Scalpy when facing an argument above his IQ level*

And ust likewizard's last companion brain cell think link was "page not found"

This forum sucks at youtube links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FV112gTPGc

[Wizard22]

It's not my fault this Forum is technologically backward and Stone Age.

That's on Jack Lewis. Every other forum on the internet allows youtube links and videos.

I can understand why there's so many backward thinkers around here, given the format.

[Harbal]

It's not my fault this Forum is technologically backward and Stone Age.

That's on Jack Lewis. Every other forum on the internet allows youtube links and videos.

I can understand why there's so many backward thinkers around here, given the format.

You should demand your money back.

[Sculptor]

It's not my fault this Forum is technologically backward and Stone Age.

That's on Jack Lewis. Every other forum on the internet allows youtube links and videos.

I can understand why there's so many backward thinkers around here, given the format.

You should demand your money back.

[Sculptor]

*Scalpy when facing an argument above his IQ level*

And ust likewizard's last companion brain cell think link was "page not found"

He's technologically illiterate, every time he puts a link to with a philosophy now page with a tag on the end such as there... /watch?v=1FV112gTPGc he's actually trying to post a youtube link, but he's too much of a cretin to manage that trick.

For some reason he's posted you a link to that Vince dude from WWE (don't tell Wizzy that WWE is scripted!) cal;ling somebody a rapist. Although seeing as that Vince guy is himself currently accused of sex crimes, I couldn't tell you if the irony is intentional. With Wizzy it usually isn't.

If you want to see it for yourself, you can usually just paste his the bit beginning /watch? into the normal yt url as so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FV112gTPGc

Gosh.
What a strange world wizzard must live in.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal writes: I doubt it, but what makes you think I want to experience an "idea-revolution"?

You formerly spoke of your intellectual curiosity and restlessness.

If at the same time there is no desire or attraction to growth or intellectual building, I guess that indicates contentment within a limited framework.

Your choice is to remain there.

And I also observe you, although I don't seem to have the same need as you to make my conclusions public.

As I’ve said dozens of times all of us arrive at our positions though trajectories we are only aware of in degrees.

You are a convenient case for a number of reasons not the least being that your intellectual motions, by your choices, turn in a closed system.

Observing you, describing you, it ain’t personal.

[FlashDangerpants]

Harbal writes: I doubt it, but what makes you think I want to experience an "idea-revolution"?

You formerly spoke of your intellectual curiosity and restlessness.

Well nobody is perfectly consistent are they Jacobi? I remember when you didn't want to explain something you wrote about the Shoah so announced you were too important or busy to discuss it unless I presented a full bibliography of all the works that I could cite for that conversation. Yet when we were discussing something where I am the one who's read all the books, suddenly it's all "You can yack till the cow jumps over the moon, mention authors, and use all rational terminologies you wish to".

So if your appreciation of a big pileof books is conditional on those books being ones the ohter guy hasn't read (so that you canpose as the master of all materials) then Harbal is well within his rights to not be terribly restless in pursuit of a revolution of antique notions about racial destinies and social purification that already lost one world war.

[Harbal]

Harbal writes: I doubt it, but what makes you think I want to experience an "idea-revolution"?

You formerly spoke of your intellectual curiosity and restlessness.

If at the same time there is no desire or attraction to growth or intellectual building, I guess that indicates contentment within a limited framework.

Your choice is to remain there.

Why does a desire to understand necessarily have to come with a need to change things? Does thinking we understand something give us the right to involve ourselves in activities that affect how others are able to live their lives? "Idea-revolutions" should be treated with caution.

And I also observe you, although I don't seem to have the same need as you to make my conclusions public.

As I’ve said dozens of times all of us arrive at our positions though trajectories we are only aware of in degrees.

You are a convenient case for a number of reasons not the least being that your intellectual motions, by your choices, turn in a closed system.

So what are you doing to change the world? If you had a significant function outside of demonstrating your verbosity on the internet, I doubt you would have the spare hours that you spend here.

Observing you, describing you, it ain’t personal.

You keep saying that. Why do you think it matters whether it's personal or not?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well nobody is perfectly consistent are they Jacobi? I remember when you didn't want to explain something you wrote about the Shoah so announced you were too important or busy to discuss it unless I presented a full bibliography of all the works that I could cite for that conversation. Yet when we were discussing something where I am the one who's read all the books, suddenly it's all "You can yack till the cow jumps over the moon, mention authors, and use all rational terminologies you wish to"

First, the context of that exchange.

Note that your gambit was to write:

And what role do you ascribe to the crafty Jew in all this? Or sorry, not you of course, but the "dissident right".

I recently said that there is something *malignant* in you. I will clarify what I mean but in a wider social and cultural context. But let's first examine your *baiting challenge*. Do you think that the people who read you do not notice what you are up to? You read something, someone says something that you don't like, for whatever reason, and you feel you are justified in exclaiming that they are "Nazis".

Now, what I want to do is to try to understand why it is that people, like you, feel that they can resort to this tactic in all argumentation and almost in relation to any controversial topic. It is certainly not just you but a whole sector of the Left-Progressive or Radical Left and certainly the so-called Antifa crowd you employ this tactic in an attempt to shoot down any ideas that you don't like. My view? We need to linger over this issue and try to examine it.

What I did say in response was:

I did grasp, of course, that you desire to malign me for having an interest in the Dissident Right that is not a priori condemnatory. But this brings up what I think is an interesting issue: there have been defined certain areas where *free thought* is not allowed, and certainly not free speech or free conversation. I am interested in the enforcement mechanisms where free thought/free speech is attacked and inhibited. I have read a great deal of Noam Chomsky's works and it is interesting that he has used the term 'unthinkable thought' for certain ideas and critical positions.

In the Postwar period certain mechanisms or tactics have been used and cemented through which open conversation on various themes have been blocked or curtailed. Obviously, one of these tactics is the use of terms like 'fascist' and 'Nazi' and certainly 'racist'. There is a group of terms. Their function is to cast the positions or ideas of their opponents in an absolutely reprehensible light and, as a result, to shut them down. But it also has to be pointed out that the conventional Right has its own lexicon of hot words that it uses in a similar manner.

Personally, I think these rhetorical tactics should not be used in discourse though I recognize they are very common.

Right there is the basis of a conversation. Except you did not then, and certainly do not now, want to pursue self-examination of the use of this underhanded tactic. You will gloss over it as if it had not been said. Why? The tactic of calling those who operate within different ideas Nazis is too seductive. You believe that the word does all needed work for you.

Note that this is why I refer to you negatively as an *intellectual cockroach* and as *malignant*. Why is this? How did you *come about*? and What is the trajectory that produced you? This is what interests me even if the reason for that interest is not intelligible to you.

Note also that I refer to you as a *termite* who has infested the foundations of the Occidental civilization. This is also a topic that requires a good deal of exposition. A mere declarative sentence is not enough.

You are uniquely and solely destructive in your focus and efforts. And what is the origin of this mood or this endeavor? It seems to stem (I must begin to guess here) from what you refer to as a position of moral anti-realism as a negation. Your larger activity is that of attacking and breaking-apart. Someone referred recently to *eristic*. You have transformed yourself into a sort of intellectual mechanism that attacks structure. And so when I analyze you as such a mechanism I am reminded of Robert Bork's general thesis in Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That the 1960s, for reasons that can be noticed, and even if in many categories there were positive trends, substantially set about to attack and break down hierarchies. Hierarchies of value. In your case you present yourself as an enemy of sound intellectual processes.

Examine what you have said in the linked portions. It is clear as day. There is no controversy. You reveal yourself.

And in contradistinction I reveal myself very differently.

You are a rat, Flash. Additionally, you are bound up in ugly perverse imaginings. As I say there is something malignant and diseased about you. And to say this is to focus not on *you-singular* but to a mass of people, many who populate this forum, who think and speak in similar ways.

You are part of a social and intellectual phenomenon.

So if your appreciation of a big pile of books is conditional on those books being ones the other guy hasn't read (so that you can pose as the master of all materials) then Harbal is well within his rights to not be terribly restless in pursuit of a revolution of antique notions about racial destinies and social purification that already lost one world war.

Your position vis-a-vis moral anti-realism is one that can be expressed in a few sentences -- and that is why I quoted Peter Holmes. It is not that it has many moving parts. Yes, you can fancy it up I guess. But it reduces to a simple statement.

The issue of how the Shoah -- the images of it, the notion of it, the symbol of it as an emblem of ontological malevolence -- now that is a topic that can be genuinely explored by honest people. Just examine how you use it, you fool!

As I say, right there is the topic of conversation. But it requires honesty and intellectual integrity. And these traits you substantially lack -- as evidenced by what you say.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal writes: Why does a desire to understand necessarily have to come with a need to change things? Does thinking we understand something give us the right to involve ourselves in activities that affect how others are able to live their lives? "Idea-revolutions" should be treated with caution.

I think the core reason, speaking for myself, is because personal processes led me to a detailed examination of my own trajectory. I have described myself as a product of California Radicalism. This is an accurate description. Reviewing things, reviewing experiences, I realized that there were many positives but also many negatives. And for reasons of personal review I set about to examine the trends that were in operation (which motivated my parents in their radicalism and which I absorbed) and to critique their choices. The influences largely but not exclusively were, as I have said, Richard Weaver, René Guénon, Robert Bork and to some degree Julius Evola. I also must mention Christopher Dawson (a Catholic historian of Europe).

Change things? No, reorient myself. Recover and rediscover a foundation that made sense. Radicalism is a breaking away from *sound structures*. If it does not involve the establishment of foundations it merely veers into chaos. This is why I speak of *anchors* and *moorings*.

So what are you doing to change the world? If you had a significant function outside of demonstrating your verbosity on the internet, I doubt you would have the spare hours that you spend here.

I am pulsing down into the world certain notes and chords, operating at such high and transformative frequencies, that all of humanity will (eventually) respond. For example one day soon you Harbal -- you! -- will wake up and start to spontaneously SING in harmony with these high high notes! Mark my words!

You keep saying that. Why do you think it matters whether it's personal or not?

It matters in conversations of this sort. One has to separate oneself from emotional commitments to that which *informs* us in order to be able to see it (more) clearly. We are here to think about, and arrive at conclusions, about what each of us thinks. Really, that is what *philosophy* is supposed to be unless I am very very wrong. It ultimately determines *how we choose to live*, doesn't it?

[Iwannaplato]

I am pulsing down into the world certain notes and chords, operating at such high and transformative frequencies, that all of humanity will (eventually) respond. For example one day soon you Harbal -- you! -- will wake up and start to spontaneously SING in harmony with these high high notes! Mark my words![

I hope the italics indicate this is ironic somehow, because otherwise you are now moving into the ranks of the narcissists here, and we have a good number.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am pulsing down into the world certain notes and chords, operating at such high and transformative frequencies, that all of humanity will (eventually) respond. For example one day soon you Harbal -- you! -- will wake up and start to spontaneously SING in harmony with these high high notes! Mark my words![

I hope the italics indicate this is ironic somehow, because otherwise you are now moving into the ranks of the narcissists here, and we have a good number.

I transcend mere garden variety narcissism. In fact I transvalue it into an octave unknown to humanity till I Am Come.

Irony. You mean saying something you know is ridiculous but with •tongue in cheek.•?

Can I get a up to date list of the active narcissists?

I must outdo them, I must!

[Iwannaplato]

I am pulsing down into the world certain notes and chords, operating at such high and transformative frequencies, that all of humanity will (eventually) respond. For example one day soon you Harbal -- you! -- will wake up and start to spontaneously SING in harmony with these high high notes! Mark my words![

I hope the italics indicate this is ironic somehow, because otherwise you are now moving into the ranks of the narcissists here, and we have a good number.

I transcend mere garden variety narcissism. In fact I transvalue it into an octave unknown to humanity till I Am Come.

Irony. You mean saying something you know is ridiculous but with •tongue in cheek.•?

I'd be relieved by that explanation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Really Iwannaplato, are there other bona fide Prophets on this forum? I ask you …

I’ll need to see credentials …