The Philosophy Discussion Forum

All of these derive from coherent systems of thought:

Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism and Social Democracy, Marxism and Communism, Anarchism, Nationalism, Fascism, Feminism, Ecologism, Islamic Fundamentalism — (and the synthetic transformative philosophy of Alexis Jacobism)…

… and all of them can be examined, analyzed, thought about and discussed.

However, when one such as you comes along and establishes that one entire pole cannot be thought about, because to do so is in itself an “act of evil”, I think that even a man with the mental range of a super-advanced chicken must himself realize that by doing so a whole range of thought and opinion is excluded from the Conversation.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 12:58 pm All of these derive from coherent systems of thought:

Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism and Social Democracy, Marxism and Communism, Anarchism, Nationalism, Fascism, Feminism, Ecologism, Islamic Fundamentalism — (and the synthetic transformative philosophy of Alexis Jacobism)…

… and all of them can be examined, analyzed, thought about and discussed.

However, when one such as you comes along and establishes that one entire pole cannot be thought about, because to do so is in itself an “act of evil”, I think that even a man with the mental range of a super-advanced chicken must himself realize that by doing so a whole range of thought and opinion is excluded from the Conversation.

I've never once told you cannot discuss your actual theory. I've said that you won't because you are too weak to do it. You still are. Go right ahead if you dare.

You will never do it because you will hit the part where you have to explain what level of coercion you would tolerate in pursuit of racial purity. Or for that matter the actual degree to which you subsume the individual into their race. And you are much too feeble to have that talk honestly.

You are emasculated. Whining that I oppress you, but too shit to ever just express yourself and take the consequences like a man.

So, once we have established the simple facts I outlined in skeleton form, we can now proceed to a consideration of the recent trend of the rise of voices on that “extreme” pole of the Right. You see, those ideas, that pole of metaphysics frankly, has been vilified by people with your tendencies. (I am not referring to your sexual perversities but rather to your ideological platform). It is a kind of idea repression. You know, cancellation, demonitization, de-banking, etc. And here I must say that they force their way back into the conversation as reactionaries.

And what “they” do when they feel they are onto something valid and relevant is to begin to read those theorists that have been excluded from the accepted canon (from “thinkable thought”).

That is why, oh so long ago now, I referenced this interesting interview with Michael Millerman. it outlines the extreme forms of censorship and control of thought within our own institutions and the University.

Yawn. Still complaining about being silenced when nobody is silencing you. Get to the point you whiny little man.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 1:11 pm You will never do it because you will hit the part where you have to explain what level of coercion you would tolerate in pursuit of racial purity.

No, actually I will not have to do any such thing because I am an observer of trends in society at this time, and one interested in the shifting ideas that result from various sorts of upheaval.

That is one important point. I am not an activist in the obvious sense that you are an activist. I have made this clear tine and time again.

How England (or France) resolves itsdemographic issue, its social issues as they pertain to ethnicity, religion, ideological commitment etc. is totally outside of my own power to influence. It is not “me” that is of consequence here, but really “you-plural” who will decide things. All that I am interested in doing is outlining what the issues are.

All of this can be talked about generally, coolly, carefully and fairly. I do not see a philosophical discussion board, located in a hyper-controlled and monitored social commentary environment (that is, English society today) as being at all appropriate for political activism. It should not be engaged in. And as I say I am not an activist …

… except in regard to my Matzo Ball Soup dietary activism. Here I get very heated.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 1:39 pm Yawn. Still complaining about being silenced when nobody is silencing you. Get to the point you whiny little man.

There are no points, my dearest one, other than those I have made!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 1:11 pm Or for that matter the actual degree to which you subsume the individual into their race.

I am not the subject here, and therefore can only sensibly refer you to other theorists who do talk about that issue.

Do you not notice that at every juncture you attempt to turn me into the activist I tell you I am not?

Actually and honestly, you seem to want to express your own social ideology, or anthropology, that an individual should not or cannot be seen (“subsumed”) into a race category. And that therefore, in any culture ir society, race (physical self) is totally irrelevant.

And that is I think a primary tenet of a late form of Liberalism, certainly of Americanism, that is definitely challenged by some vocal theorists.

And here the notion of The Great Replacement has come up in the Occident as 1) an issue of concern and 2) a fact of the transformation of the cultures of the Occident.

As I mentioned in response to this...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 2:49 am Personally, as far as my own concepts go, I am not pro-Islam for the nations of Europe for sound and non-Nazi reasons. And I definitely believe that strengthening national identity with recognition of ethnic elements is in itself not bad or evil. And I definitely understand why the issue of “White identity” is in itself not bad or evil.

All of this I can explain calmly, fairly and reasonably. No need to resort to extreme ideological positions.

No you can't. You would never get to the point. You are much too weak.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 1:59 pm And here the notion of The Great Replacement has come up in the Occident as 1) an issue of concern and 2) a fact of the transformation of the cultures of the Occident.

This eloquently and interesting exposition by R. Camus is worthy of consideration. I find that he makes many coherent points. And I can read or listen without going into spasms of offended reaction.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 2:19 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 1:59 pm And here the notion of The Great Replacement has come up in the Occident as 1) an issue of concern and 2) a fact of the transformation of the cultures of the Occident.

This eloquently and interesting exposition by R. Camus is worthy of consideration. I find that he makes many coherent points. And I can read or listen without going into spasms of offended reaction.

Boring. Not the good Camus, but rather Renaud Camus, the original Neo-Nazi author of the Neo-Nazi great replacement theory. This is all the usual stuff I expect from you, same as your Hitler appreciating friend Nick Fuentes.

But still you are a weakling. Promoting the writings of men who, in spite of being detestable, at least wrote for themselves. You will never have the nerve. You fire off a line which promises... "Personally, as far as my own concepts go..." but you haven't got what it takes to write any such thing and you will try to blame that on me again soon, you needy little weirdo.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 2:40 pm Promoting the writings of men who, in spite of being detestable, at least wrote for themselves. You will never have the nerve.

My Genealogy of Matzo will be out soon. It is my attack upon culinary conventions holding back our cooks and civilization. I can’t say it will transform the world but who can say?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 1:29 pm So, once we have established the simple facts I outlined in skeleton form, we can now proceed to a consideration of the recent trend of the rise of voices on that “extreme” pole of the Right. You see, those ideas, that pole of metaphysics frankly, has been vilified by people with your tendencies. (I am not referring to your sexual perversities but rather to your ideological platform). It is a kind of idea repression. You know, cancellation, demonitization, de-banking, etc. And here I must say that they force their way back into the conversation as reactionaries.

And what “they” do when they feel they are onto something valid and relevant is to begin to read those theorists that have been excluded from the accepted canon (from “thinkable thought”).

That is why, oh so long ago now, I referenced this interesting interview with Michael Millerman. it outlines the extreme forms of censorship and control of thought within our own institutions and the University.

Some people find right wing thinkers such as those in Germany around the turn of the 20th Century "interesting". Others don't want themselves or others to have anything to do with them. Choosing between only those two groups (and ignoring the many other possibilities), which of the two groups is 'better' than the other, those who find the German right wing thinkers "interesting" or those who don't want themselves or others to have anything to do with them? Or are they both about the same?

Gary wrote:Some people find right wing thinkers such as those in Germany around the turn of the 20th Century "interesting". Others don't want themselves or others to have anything to do with them.

And where do you place a major English Interwar theorist like Aldous Huxley? For example in his work Proper Studies? Ultra-conservative thought, ultra-right thought, conservative thought, etc., is not limited to Germany. It was and is Pan-European. It extends as well to the Orient. To India and Japan. Try to recall what I just said about the metaphysical conceptual platforms.

Interesting is different from not interesting is different from not want anything to do with them.

You are somewhat like Flash, Gary. I do not mean to say your sexual obsessions are similar, though you are both deranged in differing degrees, but insofar as you hear certain terms or words and they invoke emotions in you. Not thoughts but emotions. Therefore talking to you involves de-programming you. You are possibly the most intensely indoctrinated one on this forum in this sense.

Have you considered Mein Kampf in a flowery rhyming version?