The Philosophy Discussion Forum

He's not programmed

Not really enticed by any "de-programming" services offerred by a nazi conspiracy theorist tbh.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 4:04 pm He's not programmed

Phyllo, we in the West, and especially of America in the Postear, we can and we should as a prior assume we have been indoctrinated. Especially as we who congregate here declare an interest in philosophical pursuit. Can you, will you, take the time to listen to even 20 minutes of the Millerman interview? The issue is clearly stated there.

Unlike Gary, and certainly unlike Flash, I have done enough actual intellectual work that I can examine a text, even from the camp of ‘the enemy’ and not have my innards go into paroxysmal upheaval.

The tendency on this forum straight across the board is toward a very definite Liberal bias. Hyper-liberal in my view. When I say this — note — the ideologues here react. It is mechanical-intellectual. Pavlovian. Where did this attitude, or this inner configuration, come from? How was it constructed? If I say “This can be examined” it is not an invitation to goose-step up to the monument of history’s Darth Vader and surrender one’s volition and soul.

I could take ONE EXAMPLE (Proper Studies) by an astute English philosopher, cite from it, and clearly indicate ideas and opinions that you-plural could only label as fascistic. The purpose? Only to indicate, and not to proselytize, but to demonstrate that in literal fascistic thought there are considerable ideas, ideas that have relevance and value. But we who grew up within systems of indoctrination cannot perform the delicate, the demanding task, of discriminating reading.

You guys simply put do not read enough contemporary critical essays. Like Dangerous Minds by Ronald Beiner. (A work extremely critical of Nietzsche and Heidegger’s influence on the New Right (Dissident Right). But I am the Hitlerian fascist, right, because I bothered to expose myself to first-hand readings of those and other theoreticians of the Right? Why then would I read a critical analysis of such dangerous lines of thought if I were so ideologically committed to the horrors of Nazism?

What you are seeing is mental issues rather than programming.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 2:55 pm 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?

Not quite the right question, Gary. The better question is What is happening now in English culture that expresses definite forms of anti-Liberalism? (And takes issue with the trend of social developments in the Postwar.)

Similarly, questions can also be asked like: What conditions (and processes of thought) have produced Nick Fuentes? And why is he influencing many young men?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 5:28 pm What you are seeing is mental issues rather than programming.

Then you have not really read his often quite coherent exposition of his politics.

I have noticed his reactions many times

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 5:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 2:55 pm 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?

Not quite the right question, Gary. The better question is What is happening now in English culture that expresses definite forms of anti-Liberalism? (And takes issue with the trend of social developments in the Postwar.)

Similarly, questions can also be asked like: What conditions (and processes of thought) have produced Nick Fuentes? And why is he influencing many young men?

And why do you think Nick Fuentes thinks "Hiter was right"? Clearly, our culture generally sees Hitler as an example of what not to do or who not to vote for. Nick Fuentes doesn't agree with that assessment. Why do you think Nick Fuentes doesn't agree with that assessment. Should we all read Mein Kampf in order to be able to talk to Nick Fuentes, assuming that talking to him is going to make any difference whatsoever?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 8:30 pm And why do you think Nick Fuentes thinks "Hiter was right"? Clearly, our culture generally sees Hitler as an example of what not to do or who not to vote for. Nick Fuentes doesn't agree with that assessment. Why do you think Nick Fuentes doesn't agree with that assessment. Should we all read Mein Kampf in order to be able to talk to Nick Fuentes, assuming that talking to him is going to make any difference whatsoever?

Though Fuentes is often totally in bad taste, he is trolling for the most part. I said "for the most part". He is anti-Zionist in the sense that he feels, believes that Israel has far too much influence over US policy. I do not think he has true-blue antisemitic sentiments in the classic sense of Judenhass.

I think you should get a poetic version of Mein Kampf and -- hey I got it! -- read it with Ma and Pa on one of those lazy Florida afternoons!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 11:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 8:30 pm And why do you think Nick Fuentes thinks "Hiter was right"? Clearly, our culture generally sees Hitler as an example of what not to do or who not to vote for. Nick Fuentes doesn't agree with that assessment. Why do you think Nick Fuentes doesn't agree with that assessment. Should we all read Mein Kampf in order to be able to talk to Nick Fuentes, assuming that talking to him is going to make any difference whatsoever?

Though Fuentes is often totally in bad taste, he is trolling for the most part. I said "for the most part". He is anti-Zionist in the sense that he feels, believes that Israel has far too much influence over US policy. I do not think he has true-blue antisemitic sentiments in the classic sense of Judenhass.

I think you should get a poetic version of Mein Kampf and -- hey I got it! -- read it with Ma and Pa on one of those lazy Florida afternoons!

I'll wait for the Broadway musical to come out.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2026 5:14 pm Phyllo, we in the West, and especially of America in the Postear, we can and we should as a prior assume we have been indoctrinated.

Sure.

The tendency on this forum straight across the board is toward a very definite Liberal bias. Hyper-liberal in my view. When I say this — note — the ideologues here react. It is mechanical-intellectual. Pavlovian. Where did this attitude, or this inner configuration, come from? How was it constructed? If I say “This can be examined” it is not an invitation to goose-step up to the monument of history’s Darth Vader and surrender one’s volition and soul.

Do you think this is particular to liberals? Because it seems to me both sides (of what actually isn't a two-sided world of ideas) seem to react with great volatility to the recognition of something that either is 'from the other team' or 'seems to be'.

There are ironies here. Liberal entailed entertaining ideas outside tradition, plurality would be entertained. I can see how conservatives see little of this today. So, irony 1. But then another irony is that entertaining of non-traditional or opposed ideas was seen by conservatives as part of the problem with liberals. Out of that criticism comes the further criticism that liberals have no values (rather than different but overlapping ones). So, often I see conservatives upset that knee jerk gut reactions are coming from liberals without realizing the historical irony. One more step, since I am old enough to remember this, conservatives had the market on political correctness in my youth. It's as if this never happened. Neither the Left nor the Right seems to want to contemplate this very much. Since being on the receiving end might shift the dialogue if the left could remember what that was like, and the Right might have to stop essentializing the nature of the left. You are the communist restricters of free speech and inquiry and plurality (not a word they would use, but hey...), that's what the left is. Well................

And in those realms still controlled by the right as far as political correctness, well, it's still up and running.

While I was growing up merely seeming to be gay could lead to violence. I have no idea how you carry yourself - posture, the ways you move, tone of voice - but the way you write brings to mind a mode of being that could easily have led to violence based on political correctness. In the US. In the UK, the kind of physical presence your way of writing evokes would have a much better chance of not getting beaten up, at least in the right public schools. Merely questioning George Washington's skill as a general, or asking about the morality of manifest destiny could easily have led to failing a class. (let alone the ideas of a what a child is in traditional pedagogy). Political correctness then certainly led to firings, not being able to rent homes, threats, demotions and so on.

None of this excuses illiberal behavior now.

AJ has a lot of confirmation bias.

Then he wonders why I see him as favouring one side rather than examining both sides.

No, wait a minute, he knows why ... it's because I'm an indoctrinated hyper-liberal

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 11:42 am No, wait a minute, he knows why ... it's because I'm an indoctrinated hyper-liberal

I've noticed you can't sit without swinging your legs and looking at the door.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 6:22 am Do you think this is particular to liberals? Because it seems to me both sides (of what actually isn't a two-sided world of ideas) seem to react with great volatility to the recognition of something that either is 'from the other team' or 'seems to be'.

I think I understand what you are getting at. And I agree that a couple of decades ago it was the Right-Conservatives who asserted they had the better sense of what is right.

I suppose my position is best understood as having been originally pretty far to the so-called Left. By virtue of upbringing in fairly radical California. At a certain point, for various reasons, I thought to investigate the other pole, and for quite some time I have immersed myself in that.

Now the rainman gave me two cures
Then he said, “Jump right in”
The one was Texas medicine
The other was just railroad gin
An’ like a fool I mixed them
An’ it strangled up my mind
An’ now people just get uglier
An’ I have no sense of time

So you see what it has come to!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 2:20 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 6:22 am Do you think this is particular to liberals? Because it seems to me both sides (of what actually isn't a two-sided world of ideas) seem to react with great volatility to the recognition of something that either is 'from the other team' or 'seems to be'.

I think I understand what you are getting at. And I agree that a couple of decades ago it was the Right-Conservatives who asserted they had the better sense of what is right.

I suppose my position is best understood as having been originally pretty far to the so-called Left. By virtue of upbringing in fairly radical California. At a certain point, for various reasons, I thought to investigate the other pole, and for quite some time I have immersed myself in that.

Now the rainman gave me two cures
Then he said, “Jump right in”
The one was Texas medicine
The other was just railroad gin
An’ like a fool I mixed them
An’ it strangled up my mind
An’ now people just get uglier
An’ I have no sense of time

So you see what it has come to!

Yes, but if one reads your posts it is as if the liberals knee jerk react to signs that someone or something is on Team C, as if Team C has a different set of habits.