I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Alexis Jacobi]

…that your particular conservative viewpoint is factually superior to others.

I do not use that (too loaded) term ‘conservative’.

I do believe that within our own traditions of classical liberal arts that all needed intellectual tools are there. If those did not exist, if we did not have them to resort to, we’d become unmoored and unanchored within intellectualism.

[FlashDangerpants]

…that your particular conservative viewpoint is factually superior to others.

I do not use that (too loaded) term ‘conservative’.

I do believe that within our own traditions of classical liberal arts that all needed intellectual tools are there. If those did not exist, if we did not have them to resort to, we’d become unmoored and unanchored within intellectualism.

Navigating your terminological hangups is designed to be an impossible task, Immanuel Can uses that trick too.

Whategver you want to call it, this conservative adjacent thing is either factually superior to competing views or it is something you simply recommend and prefer. One of those would require supporting argument that aims at fact, the other would require supporting argument of a much lower standard and would have little meaningful impact as a result of that reduced logical requirement.

Are you making an assertion of factual superiority or is your work something more along the lines of preaching to the choir?

[Iwannaplato]

My impression is that you are concerned about and more interested in economic and structural issues pertaining to the transfer of wealth to elite groups (if I understood you previously).

That's certainly one issue related to power. I would say first power issues, which include economic issues, but also direct issues of centralization of power in governments and in the every increasingly powerful and centralize media, banks and corporations. Alongside this and related to it are the uses of technologies in surveillance, nanotech, AI and gene manipulation and products. All of this concerns me more than social issues, even if I have opinions and preferences in those areas.

I think that you will likely go on to ask clarifying question after clarifying question about “how will genuine change occur?” of the sort that seems truly relevant to you. But no answer I will give will satisfy you.

Well, regarding those issues, it would be off topic in this thread. But relevant to this thread, for example, I'm still not sure what the ideas of the people you've been citing lead to in what we experience. Concrete lived lives.

My suggestion? Take 10 minutes to read that informative article. It will explain how Weaver’s ideas influenced (American) conservatism. I reread it in about that time.

If I were to make statements about how his ideas changed me — how I live, the choices I make, where I retract energy and where I direct it, my answers would satisfy me but likely hold no meaning for you.

Perhaps you could tie the ideas to the topic of this thread. How do they relate? what practical changes would they lead to?

In a sense, why did you bring him up?

How about this: refrain from asking questions and muse on the ideas presented so far. Is there nothing that strikes you? What about Weaver’s critical position vis-a-vis The Great Stereopticon?

Sure, at that level of abstraction I see this happening more and more around a whole host of issues. They are getting better at it. You mentioned Chomsky earlier and in his now old Manufacturing Consent he talked about how we can be convinced merely via marginalizing ideas those in power don't like, rather the the censorship of, say, Soviet practices (in those days). Since that time there has been incredible concentration of media in a few large conglomerates, so his concern is only even more relevant. And the ability to manipulate, the science of manipulation has also advanced. In the abstract I notice these trends also.

What about the idea of regrounding in metaphysically defined principles?

We'd have to agree on them. People seem pretty grounded (in a neutral use of that word) in their principles, though few notice or struggle around the contradictions in their principles on any side of the current culture wars, I think.

My general view, regarding the larger picture (mass economic and global events) is that we are all carried along and not in “good” ways. In that condition we all •seek anchors•. Do you agree? In what way do you seek anchors? Does the reference mean anything to you?

I'm not sure what the phrase means.

I'm on the lazy side when I do reading directly for specific topics here or get links from others.

You will be able to understand that writing in depth will take an hour, even more, and may not help you to understand my own value-choices which, likely, do not make sense to you anyway.

So please read up on your own and I think your questions will be answered.

I'd prefer to interact with people here rather than texts. I have a lot of texts I have to read at work, and then my own interests lead to texts. When people here, for example, are affected or find justification in texts for their beliefs, I'd much prefer they pull out what they use and their interpretation. If you don't want to, well, that's the way it is.

As to the larger question of Traditionalism and Metaphysics (Guénon, Evola) I’m still here and will likely have more things to say.

I take it you never read The Crisis of the Modern World? It is an interesting essay. But you would label it •abstract• and thus non-useful to you (?)

I can get use from abstract texts, though generally I think it's best that there is a flow between the abstract and the concrete and the general and the specific. It's so easy to project our own biases on abstract texts and then also to not really get a sense of what it means.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Whategver you want to call it, this conservative adjacent thing is either factually superior to competing views or it is something you simply recommend and prefer.

You keep asking me to restate what I have already asserted. The ideas I present, and I also refer to the philosophical and metaphysical perspectives of Weaver — now a part of this conversation and the arguments that interest me — are demonstrably superior when compared to their alternatives.

These values, and their principles, indeed are those I •prefer•. Because I have become convinced of their soundness through intellectual processing.

You are stuck, Flash. You are an intellectually stuck person. You seem to me to suffer from indecisiveness because you do not have a set of sound principles by which you have been convinced.

However, I am open to hearing you speak of your own philosophical-value base in respect to the topics. On what basis do you make your determinations?

You are reacting to stated positions I present. And reaction of that sort just goes on and on. For this reason I say you are •stuck•.

[Iwannaplato]

If that is true these “conservatives” only need to broaden their understanding yet not abandon or sacrifice the •principles• involved.

I'm not saying they need to abandon their principles, but their critiques are confused, because they have hallucinated idea of history and attack other groups based on criteria that their own beliefs don't meet. The dialogue is skewed and undermined. And my sense is that cognitive dissonance is being avoided.

The quest is to struggle to define the principles.

In our Modernity a great deal stands in the way of that project. Because our postmodernism does not recognize universal principles (as Weaver attempts to point out).

The gentlepeople who write here, on the whole, are outcomes of postmodern philosophical perspectives that have been internalized into a weird operative metaphysics.

Fine. I think there's validity in that critique. But it doesn't contradict my critique and there is a kind of non-historical, monolithic sense of history is some of the criticisms coming from both you and Wizard.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whategver you want to call it, this conservative adjacent thing is either factually superior to competing views or it is something you simply recommend and prefer.

You keep asking me to restate what I have already asserted. The ideas I present, and I also refer to the philosophical and metaphysical perspectives of Weaver — now a part of this conversation and the arguments that interest me — are demonstrably superior when compared to their alternatives.

These values, and their principles, indeed are those I •prefer•. Because I have become convinced of their soundness through intellectual processing.

You are stuck, Flash. You are an intellectually stuck person. You seem to me to suffer from indecisiveness because you do not have a set of sound principles by which you have been convinced.

However, I am open to hearing you speak of your own philosophical-value base in respect to the topics. On what basis do you make your determinations?

You are reacting to stated positions I present. And reaction of that sort just goes on and on. For this reason I say you are •stuck•.

I am asking you to disambiguate because you are contradicting yourself. If the ideas you present are demonstrably superior then you are making a claim of normative fact. But if they are only somthing you •prefer• on some basis of being persuaded through introspection, then you are not claiming access to normative facts.

This is basic philosophy, Aristotle and the Law of non Contradiction currently have a problem with you. So on what basis do you claim this superiority? Show an argument, preferrably one that is not a cheeky little false dichotomy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am asking you to disambiguate because you are contradicting yourself. If the ideas you present are demonstrably superior then you are making a claim of normative fact. But if they are only something you •prefer• on some basis of being persuaded through introspection, then you are not claiming access to normative facts

You might have comprehension issues. And again you ask me to restate what I already stated.

I have ascertained that the ideas or values I reference are superior to others (in respect to sexual ethics, where we began). Through intellectual and also personal work (life experiences, etc.)

At the same time I also prefer the ideas and principles I have defined and hierarchized.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that both currents operate? If you have an issue here, what exactly is it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is basic philosophy, Aristotle and the Law of non Contradiction currently have a problem with you. So on what basis do you claim this superiority?

Since there is no contradiction, your thrust is misplaced. Abandon the false-assertion. Start over.

I assert there are principles — universal principles of value — and I seek to use my intellectual perceiving self to define them. I have done this. I’ve made my choices.

Can I convince you? No. Because you do not believe in or respect the very notion of universal values. And essentially therein is your issue and our problem. Once you see this it all gets clear.

[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.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is basic philosophy, Aristotle and the Law of non Contradiction currently have a problem with you. So on what basis do you claim this superiority?

Since there is no contradiction, your thrust is misplaced. Abandon the false-assertion. Start over.

I assert there are principles — universal principles of value — and I seek to use my intellectual perceiving self to define them. I have done this. I’ve made my choices.

Can I convince you? No. Because you do not believe in or respect the very notion of universal values. And essentially therein is your issue and our problem. Once you see this it all gets clear.

That's not how it works. If there are universal facts about which values are true then you should be able to explain an argument to substantiate a factual claim about the factual values. There would be no escape via just not believing in values as fact if you could do that, because you would be able to show incontrovertibly that I was in error.

[Sculptor]

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

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

[Wizard22]

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

I doubt you've ever touched a beautiful woman, Scalpy. You're projecting again.

[Sculptor]

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

I doubt you've ever touched a beautiful woman, Scalpy. You're projecting again.

I've been really lucky with women actually.
And I have procreated despite my liberal views.

[Skepdick]

That's not how it works. If there are universal facts about which values are true then you should be able to explain an argument to substantiate a factual claim about the factual values. There would be no escape via just not believing in values as fact if you could do that, because you would be able to show incontrovertibly that I was in error.

Yeah, sure.

It is universally true that values are more valuable than truth.

That was easy. Do you have any harder ones?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's not how it works.

You do not determine how *it* or anything “works”. You cannot imperiously dismiss ideas nor values with a wave of your hand.

Your purpose here is strictly negative: to shoot down any assertion. It is easily done simply by vocalization.

The issue is really if there are principles that you recognize as real and constant — and revealable. You do not. Full stop.

You are stuck and it is your issue to resolve, not mine.