The Philosophy Discussion Forum

I am not going to “substantiate” the views I presented since, as I explained, I lived through the events.

I guess you’re stuck, Mick.

Why don’t you talk about your own politics? The city and state you live in? Your affiliations.

Why aren’t you on the Radical Right?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 7:42 pm I lived through the events.

You watched them on TV from another country?

Meanwhile, the war against Iran is going really badly. The USA looks likely to permanently abandon the Bahrain HQ of Fifth fleet because Iran has blown the hell out of it. Trump's claim to have defeated the Houthi militia that is allied to Iran back in May has turned out to be optimistic given that thosee same Houtho militias have now stormed most of Yemen and are in position to blockade the Red Sea. And the pipelien that was supposed to carry a load of Saudi oil around that obstacle is on fire.

This isn't going to get better by doing more of the same shit. The US has expended too much ammunition on the war to replace it in any reasonble time frame. The US has a doctrine that requires always maintaining resources to defeat a major opponent such as China or Russia even during a war against a regional power such as Iran, this in itself is a downgrade form the previous two and a half wars doctrine. Using 45% of precision strike missiles, when only 3 to 5% of the stockpile can be replenished in any given year contravenes that doctrine, but it has already happened. Other categories of strike munition are approaching similar constraints, and defensive ammo is running out much faster.

If Trump can't find a way to extricate himself from this war real soon, his own party will be no choice but to get rid of him in order to extricate everyone else from it.

That was FlashDangerPants with our progress report in the middle-east and now back to you, AJ.

(I called all this the day the orange started this mess. My post should have been sent to the White House. May have stopped the dipshit)

A fuckin recruit who hasn't even made private yet and is still learning how to shoot a rifle knows this middle-east war won't work. You don't have to be a military analyst to know this.

But there is nothing an American can do to stop the bourgeoisie from spending his tax dollars on the private war games of rich insecure men trying to be tough guys and impress each other in situation rooms.

And nothing substantial would change in the life of that American whether this war is waged or not. It quite literally is nothing more than rich politicians playing war games. You get up to go to work in the morning, the Don gets up to shoot the missles you bought him at the middle-east. Nothing will be gained or lost. Prices won't move. Terrorists won't blow your grocery store up. Your life continues on as if the middle-east didn't even exist. That's how relevant this war is to your working class life. You are the foundation upon which the bourgeoisie stand to play their games with the money you give them. And you will always only be that.

Hey... what if instead of spending x dollars on making a missle, the Don picked a random working American to give that x dollars to?

We'd be totally fucked, wouldn't we? Absolute mayhem. If for every missle fired at the middle-east there was instead one working class guy/gal who paid his car off and was able to afford a trip to Busch Gardens now, civilization may very well collapse.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 7:42 pm I am not going to “substantiate” the views I presented …

… just as I predicted.

But this isn’t about your “views”, AJ. It’s about your grasp of the facts.

• When you wrote on 30th Aug that Biden allowed (intentionally and irresponsibly) an increase in immigrants entering the US, that was a lie.
• When you wrote on Sep 5 that Biden’s administration worked the narrative of an ‘open border’, that was a lie.
• When you wrote on Sep 6 that Biden’s administration welcomed and encouraged a flood of immigrants, and
  deliberately modified the demographics of the US, that was a lie.
• When you wrote on Sep 7 that the Biden administration was complicit in reports of a porous border and the corresponding massive influx of foreigners, that was a lie.

Now of course that isn’t four lies; they are different flavours of the same basic lie; one that is common among right wing messengers and right wing saps.

But did you know it wasn’t true or did you actually believe it? And if you believed the lie, can you offer any explanation why?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 7:42 pm I am not going to “substantiate” the views I presented since, as I explained, I lived through the events.

I guess you’re stuck, Mick.

Why don’t you talk about your own politics? The city and state you live in? Your affiliations.

Why aren’t you on the Radical Right?

Are you promoting xenophobia and militarism? Are those things we ought to look into, that maybe we might find pleasant and agreeable?

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 9:17 pm … just as I predicted.

You’re stuck in a loop, Mick.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 9:39 pm Are you promoting xenophobia and militarism? Are those things we ought to look into, that maybe we might find pleasant and agreeable?

Do you mean in America? I think you do. And my opinion is that at this point having such a view, either based on racial preference or aversion to foreigners, is simply like “plowing the ocean”. In 1965 (so the narrative goes) America was a White, European-derived nation. I think the figure was something like 95% though maybe only 92%. At that time the immigration laws were revised. And as a result the demographics of the nation were ‘reengineered’. The figure now is (though figures differ) around 65% more or less. That in itself is a major and a significant change.

Simply put, America is defined differently now. For this and many other contributing reasons America struggles with an *identity* crisis. It was founded by White Europeans very aware of their “whiteness” and frankly committed to it (it is in the First Naturalization Act of 1790):

"…any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least; and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character..."

These are simply facts, M. Childress.

There are all sorts of things that can be said about all of this. But your ‘question’ was really a comment: You see xenophobia as ‘bad’ and not ‘good’. Yet this came about through a processes of transvaluation of a former value.

In my present view, I believe it must be admitted that America is in a general decline. I am here now and I see it all around me. The discussion of how this came about is an interesting one, but surely on this forum that analysis is simply too ‘hot’.

You are so much a child of American (late) Liberalism, Gary, that you cannot see or imagine, and certainly not propose, anything different. And any alternative, for you, is understood to be ‘evil’.

The astounding success of America in the Postwar Era came about by way of military prowess. The Postwar world order was an American design. So militarism has a significant place in any national greatness. Better than a German-determined world order, or a Russian Communist one, or a Japanese one, no? It was an amazing accomplishment.

I think America as a nation and an identity lost its way in the post-Sixties. I agree, largely, with Robert Bork’s analysis. But what happened, happened. The result and the consequences are now present and there is no way to stop them from continuing along ‘negative’ lines.

Does any of this *answer* any questions for you?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 2:10 pm
That was FlashDangerPants with our progress report in the middle-east and now back to you, AJ.

I find Nick Fuentes to be far more aggressive and poignant in his rhetorical thrust. (This is not advocacy however). I find that he zeroes in on things, and talks about things, that no one else can. He’s like an ebullient child in that sense who cannot do else but speak his mind.

Flash merely lists what a hundred sources are reporting.

What do I hope for? That despite losing every battle, that the Iran régime falls (somehow) and the American loss turn into a win. I put that at 15-20% probable.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 11:45 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 2:10 pm
That was FlashDangerPants with our progress report in the middle-east and now back to you, AJ.

I find Nick Fuentes to be far more aggressive and poignant in his rhetorical thrust. (This is not advocacy however). I find that he zeroes in on things, and talks about things, that no one else can. He’s like an ebullient child in that sense who cannot do else but speak his mind.

Flash merely lists what a hundred sources are reporting.

What do I hope for? That despite losing every battle, that the Iran régime falls (somehow) and the American loss turn into a win. I put that at 15-20% probable.

That's a video of a white supremacist ranting about jews for a while before demanding a big government with a massive security state to kill its political opponents including commies and anarchists, but then he says "maybe that's a little extreme, but I want a big government ... make Israel our slave ... prosecute all Zionists in America."

You nazis always go too far, that's sort of your whole deal really.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 12:18 am That's a video of a white supremacist ranting about Jews for a while before demanding a big government with a massive security state to kill its political opponents including commies and anarchists, but then he says "maybe that's a little extreme, but I want a big government ... make Israel our slave ... prosecute all Zionists in America."

You Nazis always go too far, that's sort of your whole deal really.

That is pretty much the position that Fuentes defines, and that is why I posted it: to provide a picture of an element of opposition to the present political structure in America. A correction: I do not think Fuentes is so much anti-Semitic in a thorough sense, I think his position is that Zionism is not a friend of his conception of America First.

Fuentes is in truth a ‘throwback’ to an attitude that was common within the American establishment. You could call it ‘normalcy’. Around 1900 and between 1900-1930 the ruling class, the directorate class, was Eastern and Protestant (and viewed Catholicism negatively and as a threat: they reproduce too quickly and aren’t aligned with “Americanism”). They are the clique that favored a very restrictive immigration policy. They certainly would not have appreciated, nor allowed, any minority, especially a Jewish-Zionist minority, to have as much power and pull as do a cadre of American Jewish Zionists in association with dual nationals, Israelis, and the Israel political and intelligence apparatus. There is nothing wrong in any sense with such a position though naturally it is made to seem abhorrent. It really is not.

And quite frankly it was Meershiemer and Walt, two mainstream American Jews, who presented a coherent and rather devastating picture of Zionist machinations over American government in their The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The view itself is certainly not anti-Jewish, though it is defined as such.

Just a few decades ago the security apparatus of the US — the FBI and other agencies — waged a literal clandestine war against the Black Guerrilla Army and the Black Panthers. They effectively thwarted a literally revolutionary armed vanguard operating and organizing in major urban centers in the US.

So you see, though I guess it depends on your political affiliations, that security apparatuses are part-and-parcel of the American governing structure. It is outlandish that Fuentes mouths off about killing Commies and Socialists, but completely coherent for a state that refuses to allow revolution to foment within it.

So his position is certainly radical, but not really inconceivable.

These are simply ‘facts’, Flash.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 10:57 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 9:17 pm … just as I predicted.

You’re stuck in a loop, Mick.

You spread right wing lies, AJ. You pretend you believe them, but you can’t justify that belief. Your pose as a intellectual seeker-after-truth is exposed as merely that—a pose.

You are that most common and tedious thing, a right wing liar.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 3:17 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 10:57 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 9:17 pm … just as I predicted.

You’re stuck in a loop, Mick.

You spread right wing lies, AJ. You pretend you believe them, but you can’t justify that belief. Your pose as a intellectual seeker-after-truth is exposed as merely that—a pose.

You are that most common and tedious thing, a right wing liar.

Describe to me the alternative? Present the truer perspective and outlook that is the right one to have. Tell me in what place you live in and what is going on there politically and socially. Why do these Rightwing liars lie as you say they do? And what is the truth? If you don’t follow them, who do you follow Mick? How do you orient yourself?

Surely these are things that you desire to present to me and to those reading? Make the correction then. Spell it out. I am all ears.