Christianity

[iambiguous]

....again, what specifically do you think should be done about it? What should the policies of the American government be to stem this demographic crisis? How far would you go? Not as far as Hitler perhaps but more in that direction?

I'm just trying to pin down how existentially you became a racist [re dasein] and how far you would go to create a community, a nation where the intellectually superior "Northern European" white race prevailed?

I notice an increasingly fraught tone in what you write. I also notice that you repeat, like a litany, a set of assertions that derive from Progressive ideology. You will have to understand that I reject Progressivism and Egalitarianism to the degree that they become tools of a Marxian subversion. Yet my general philosophy is 'personalist' and this has to do with respecting persons. All persons.

Nope. That's just me doing my thing here. A polemicist provoking the "my way or the highway" objectivists. Why would I exclude racists?

You have asked many leading questions because you want to embroil me in moral issues within which you are certain you have leverage. I simply side-step this. You can (i.e. you are free to) phrase and paraphrase what you believe I am saying into whatever form you seem to wish me to say and then argue with full vehemence against that -- if that serves your purposes.

My purpose [as I note time and again] is to bring the "general description intellectual contraptions" that you and your ilk prefer here down out of the didactic/pedantic clouds. You argue "up there" that the Northern European white race is intellectually superior to the black, brown and red "stock". Then you refuse to note specifically what governments in nations like America ought to do to stem the growing "demographic crisis". You hide behind words here rather than bring your own words out into the world that we live in. Only I note in turn that others who share your words are more than willing to "walk the talk". All the way to the death camps again one suspects for some. So, where do you draw the line politically and legally?

Instead, straight back up into the stratosphere you go..

I talk in general terms about what different people think about race, about multiculturalism, about the American project, and really a very wide gamut of different types of concerns within areas of tremendous contention. I am aware of the full scope of these issues and questions and I have read, and do read, very widely. But what I am not doing is recommending a political praxis. I approach these topics *as a philosopher* -- and by that I only mean as one open to discussing things, thinking about things, free from coercion. I start from the premise that we live in and are subject to ideological coercion. To understand what I mean you will only need to step back from your own argument style and terms and see how you, yourself, are deeply involved in this. I wish to be on the outside of it, not embroiled and enmeshed in it. And I also want to be able to recover, since I regard it as being under assault, the capability of thinking and reasoning freely, without being subject to ideological coercion.

Again, you will find more than your fair share of posters here who will go up there with you. But I'm not one of them.

So the statement that I make, and really it is the only solid plank or platform that I have, is that I reject completely the machinations of anti-whiteness. I see the trend or the ideology or the psychological pathology of anti-whiteness as being a specific and a real thing. And to turn against that, and to define an alternative to it, but one that is sane, healthy, self-affirming but not harmful or destructive to other people's identity -- that is what I am after.

Sure, those who are "anti-white" because they claim their own race is intellectually or morally or naturally superior instead...while claiming that science backs them up...seem equally problematic to me. What would they do if they were in power?

So what I suggest that you do is to review what I have written so far and see, if you can, that I have not made any 'immoral' statements and nothing like what you seem to wish for me to say. You are both baiting me and leading me. I am aware of this and as I say I simply side-step it.

More bullshit. Anything to avoid stating explicitly what you believe must be done politically to end the "crisis"

You seem to be very concerned about superiority and inferiority. I have transcended preoccupations of that sort. I do not think in those terms. But I do think in terms of shared values, shared history, shared *trajectory*, shared concepts of destiny and attainment. And I am certainly open to and capable of talking about any of these things.

Right. You argue the science is there to suggest the Northern European white race is intellectually more evolved than the other races but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with superiority and inferiority.

Okay, how about talking about your idea of a "shared destiny" for the Northern European white race. What specifically would that entail socially, politically and economically in any community that you would be proud to be a member of.

Turning back to your (baiting and leading) question:

"....again, what specifically do you think should be done about it? What should the policies of the American government be to stem this demographic crisis? How far would you go? Not as far as Hitler perhaps but more in that direction?"

I have already made my position clear. You simply need to read it and assimilate it. I regard the *right* of a Japanese, or a Nigerian, or a Frenchman, to define themselves at a somatic level in the same way that they may define all other categories of concern. If they see *themselves* as a specific thing (or outcome as in heritage) they are completely within their rights to define and also control their demographics. It is easier for us to see this *right* when we apply it to a generally homogenous (and island) nation like Japan. One that is distinct. Also, Japanese culture is so distinctive that it also makes it earier to see and identify it.

Right, right. If Japanese or Nigerians or Frenchmen think like you do...that their own skin color or ethnic group or culture or nationality entails the best and the brightest...they too can be racist.

I get that. And I'll bet there are Japanese, Nigerian and French philosophers able to go up into the theoretical/conceptual clouds and make arguments -- create intellectual "platforms" -- just like you do here.

[iambiguous]

Okay, how fuzzy was it for Germans after Hitler came to power there? How fuzzy was it for those in any community down through the ages in which race and ethnicity and nationality were championed by those in power?

Can you elaborate on what you are proposing here? Is your issue against National Socialist ideas about "Germanism'? Is your core issue against any identitarian definitions? Are you proposing no structure of identity? Are you proposing -- for example in America -- the surrender to of identity to the Liberal State?

Can you talk more about what you mean?

I mean that down through the ages historically there have been any number of communities that embraced race or ethnicity or culture or nationality as the dividing line between "one of us" and "one of them".

Think the "America...love it or leave it" mentality. Rabid patriotism that revolved around one or another rendition of the "real Americans".

Then the part where, as Marx suggested, the "ruling class" was more than capable of using this to sustain their own wealth and power. Race being but one component of this.

Then this part: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... h#p2288881

Again, however, where do you fit into it "for all practical purposes"?

I guess we'll never know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Salvation as a sort of commodity exchange. I like it! Very Jewish.

Well, a "commodity exchange" supposes that both parties have something, some "commodity" to give to each other.

What have you got, that the Righteous God should want? I'll be interested to know.

Well, if you think about it you’ll have to realize that our soul (within the Story you work within) is certainly a commodity. If god doesn’t get it the devil does. If the devil fights for it and lays traps it is a something and not a nothing. Thus commodity-like.

Apparently — again following your story line — god wants something in the transaction. Otherwise why would he bother? Why go through such elaborated rehearsals?

A pure and good soul among we humans — especially if we are loved by one, if even we know one — is the absolute finest gift that life can give, no? What else really has more value for any one of us?

So it is a thing of value.

If the soul is “part of god” then it is reasonable to assume he would wish to, perhaps even need, to re-assimilate all he could. (Granted this is a sort of kabbalistic idea).

Again I am just working within the Story that so captivates you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You argue "up there" that the Northern European white race is intellectually superior to the black, brown and red "stock".

Um, you have a small problem to resolve: I’ve never said such a thing. And I do not think in those terms. I have a feeling that you do though and you project that onto me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sure, those who are "anti-white" because they claim their own race is intellectually or morally or naturally superior instead...

As far as I am aware the “anti-White” activity, mood, undertaking, strategy (however we may define it) has nothing to do with a reverse- or counter-superiority position.

I thinking your case you’d first have do some reading to gain a sense about what ‘anti-White’ refers to.

You are not prepared for the exchange you seem to want to have.

[phyllo]

Alexis Jacobi: When the State, and other state-associated entities, become governmental agents for an imposition of egalitarian policy. Especially when under an aegis of Marxist ideology. As we can easily note in Europe and America today.

If you have a society based on the principle of "all men are created equal ..." or "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" then the state is supposed to enforce that principle.

It is often amazing to me that some people (you?) who should be able to take an idea, an assertion, and deal with it by carrying it forward, don't. *You* stop before you've even begun.

What you should have understood is that while they were exclaiming "Liberty, Equality & Fraternity" they were also carrying out The Terror and chopping people's heads off. If reaction (to oppressive circumstances) is to be seen by us as 'justified', and who does not? there is also a whole realm of things that attended the revolution that were not. What were those things Phyllo? You'd have to be able to answer that question. And dammit man but that means you'd have to have some background in the topic. If you did you'd then be able to engage in the conversation.

It could have been obvious, it should have been obvious, that Our Present is a culmination of the Liberal Project taken to its extremes. If you'd have been reading more and keeping abreast of things you'd know that there is a Critique that is developing which describes this *culmination* as one of 'Liberal rot'. What are the symptoms? When freedom, the idea about being free, loses all grounding and becomes unfettered license. Those who examine the issue of cultural rot often refer to the extreme license in sexual mores and the deviancy we see today. Or perhaps in what appears to be a psychological condition of 'gender dysphoria' that seems to be a massive infection among youths (who really should have other and far more wholesome focuses). Seen from one perspective then the world (in any case our world) looks like it is 'going nuts'.

What other evidences are there? Must I spell every one of them out in a bulleted list? Shouldn't you already be aware of all of this? Do you read? Are you even concerned? Have you any background at all in what is a sane liberalism?

Have you been paying any attention at all to the social, cultural and political evolutions (or devolutions as the case may be) of the last 50-60 years in America alone? I do not mean to say that you should be convinced by my general reference to 'decadence', though I very much believe that that is the case, but rather shouldn't you have made and be making your own investigations?

More recently, did you notice what happened culture-wide during the recent riots and uprisings around the death of George Floyd? How government, some institutions and an array of corporations took up the cause of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and how the doors of intellectual world of free thought were slammed shut and certain expressions of idea became culturally illegal?

Have you paid any attention at all to the critical conversations that have been broached about ideological coercion in the universities? Are you aware of any of the topical events which, perhaps, could be well illustrated by this startling video?

Do you know that girl? Are you that girl?

Did you pay any attention at all to the incidents at Evergreen College? (Perhaps you should be forgiven as you might not be an American and this is an English forum).

Still there is all sorts of similar incidents going on in Europe too.

Have you kept up with all the controversy around Critical Race Theory? Have you yourself looked into it? Do you know what it is? Do you know its origins? Are you aware of the critical arguments brought out against it?

If you did this statement would have made more sense to you:

When the State, and other state-associated entities, become governmental agents for an imposition of egalitarian policy. Especially when under an aegis of Marxist ideology. As we can easily note in Europe and America today.

What does any of that have to do with egalitarianism?

Nothing.

The Reign of Terror comes closest. Two hundred odd years ago, a group of hypocritical and self-serving people adopted the phrase. Which does not invalidate the principle of equality in the modern world.

The rest is just a lack of focus.

Decadence, shrieking girl, Critical Race theory ...

A bitch list of things that currently bother you.


I suppose you think that by getting rid of egalitarianism, then you and others will be able to clean this up.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Right, right. If Japanese or Nigerians or Frenchmen think like you do...that their own skin color or ethnic group or culture or nationality entails the best and the brightest...they too can be racist.

First, they might only think similarly to me or embrace some of my categories. Some they might reject.

And yes, if you determine that the entire range of such concerns, including the ‘somatic’ one, is racist, then yes, of course, you will apply that blanket term. It will be a circular definition though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What does any of that have to do with egalitarianism?

You had your chance Phyllo.

Which does not invalidate the principle of equality in the modern world.

The principles is another thing. I referred to Progressivism and Egalitarianism as handled by a State apparatus that I have issues with.

[iambiguous]

You argue "up there" that the Northern European white race is intellectually superior to the black, brown and red "stock".

Um, you have a small problem to resolve: I’ve never said such a thing. And I do not think in those terms. I have a feeling that you do though and you project that onto me.

Note to others:

If you had to sum up AJ's arguments in regard to race and intelligence, what would you conclude?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I mean that down through the ages historically there have been any number of communities that embraced race or ethnicity or culture or nationality as the dividing line between "one of us" and "one of them".

Dividing lines have functions. I do not discount nor wish to eliminate the value or necessity within (some aspects of) the function.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You argue "up there" that the Northern European white race is intellectually superior to the black, brown and red "stock".

Um, you have a small problem to resolve: I’ve never said such a thing. And I do not think in those terms. I have a feeling that you do though and you project that onto me.

Note to others:

If you had to sum up AJ's arguments in regard to race and intelligence, what would you conclude?

Sure, you can appeal to the mob opinion and attempt to get the mob to side with you. But that is a sort of forum demagoguery if you think about it.

You often employ a “note to others” in your Immanuel Can battles but it has (to me) seemed rather cheap.

That tactic is similar to the one those kids on campus use against their professor. (See a video posted for Phyllo: the shrieking girl).

[phyllo]

What does any of that have to do with egalitarianism?

You had your chance Phyllo. You’ve done nothing.

If you have a problem with egalitarianism, then write about egalitarianism.

Universities restricting freedom of speech is not egalitarianism. CRT is not egalitarianism. Shrieking girl is not egalitarianism.

[iambiguous]

ME:

....again, what specifically do you think should be done about it? What should the policies of the American government be to stem this demographic crisis? How far would you go? Not as far as Hitler perhaps but more in that direction?

I'm just trying to pin down how existentially you became a racist [re dasein] and how far you would go to create a community, a nation where the intellectually superior "Northern European" white race prevailed?

I notice an increasingly fraught tone in what you write. I also notice that you repeat, like a litany, a set of assertions that derive from Progressive ideology. You will have to understand that I reject Progressivism and Egalitarianism to the degree that they become tools of a Marxian subversion. Yet my general philosophy is 'personalist' and this has to do with respecting persons. All persons.

Nope. That's just me doing my thing here. A polemicist provoking the "my way or the highway" objectivists. Why would I exclude racists?

You have asked many leading questions because you want to embroil me in moral issues within which you are certain you have leverage. I simply side-step this. You can (i.e. you are free to) phrase and paraphrase what you believe I am saying into whatever form you seem to wish me to say and then argue with full vehemence against that -- if that serves your purposes.

My purpose [as I note time and again] is to bring the "general description intellectual contraptions" that you and your ilk prefer here down out of the didactic/pedantic clouds. You argue "up there" that the Northern European white race is intellectually superior to the black, brown and red "stock". Then you refuse to note specifically what governments in nations like America ought to do to stem the growing "demographic crisis". You hide behind words here rather than bring your own words out into the world that we live in. Only I note in turn that others who share your words are more than willing to "walk the talk". All the way to the death camps again one suspects for some. So, where do you draw the line politically and legally?

Instead, straight back up into the stratosphere you go..

I talk in general terms about what different people think about race, about multiculturalism, about the American project, and really a very wide gamut of different types of concerns within areas of tremendous contention. I am aware of the full scope of these issues and questions and I have read, and do read, very widely. But what I am not doing is recommending a political praxis. I approach these topics *as a philosopher* -- and by that I only mean as one open to discussing things, thinking about things, free from coercion. I start from the premise that we live in and are subject to ideological coercion. To understand what I mean you will only need to step back from your own argument style and terms and see how you, yourself, are deeply involved in this. I wish to be on the outside of it, not embroiled and enmeshed in it. And I also want to be able to recover, since I regard it as being under assault, the capability of thinking and reasoning freely, without being subject to ideological coercion.

Again, you will find more than your fair share of posters here who will go up there with you. But I'm not one of them.

So the statement that I make, and really it is the only solid plank or platform that I have, is that I reject completely the machinations of anti-whiteness. I see the trend or the ideology or the psychological pathology of anti-whiteness as being a specific and a real thing. And to turn against that, and to define an alternative to it, but one that is sane, healthy, self-affirming but not harmful or destructive to other people's identity -- that is what I am after.

Sure, those who are "anti-white" because they claim their own race is intellectually or morally or naturally superior instead...while claiming that science backs them up...seem equally problematic to me. What would they do if they were in power?

So what I suggest that you do is to review what I have written so far and see, if you can, that I have not made any 'immoral' statements and nothing like what you seem to wish for me to say. You are both baiting me and leading me. I am aware of this and as I say I simply side-step it.

More bullshit. Anything to avoid stating explicitly what you believe must be done politically to end the "crisis"

You seem to be very concerned about superiority and inferiority. I have transcended preoccupations of that sort. I do not think in those terms. But I do think in terms of shared values, shared history, shared *trajectory*, shared concepts of destiny and attainment. And I am certainly open to and capable of talking about any of these things.

Right. You argue the science is there to suggest the Northern European white race is intellectually more evolved than the other races but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with superiority and inferiority.

Okay, how about talking about your idea of a "shared destiny" for the Northern European white race. What specifically would that entail socially, politically and economically in any community that you would be proud to be a member of.

Turning back to your (baiting and leading) question:

"....again, what specifically do you think should be done about it? What should the policies of the American government be to stem this demographic crisis? How far would you go? Not as far as Hitler perhaps but more in that direction?"

I have already made my position clear. You simply need to read it and assimilate it. I regard the *right* of a Japanese, or a Nigerian, or a Frenchman, to define themselves at a somatic level in the same way that they may define all other categories of concern. If they see *themselves* as a specific thing (or outcome as in heritage) they are completely within their rights to define and also control their demographics. It is easier for us to see this *right* when we apply it to a generally homogenous (and island) nation like Japan. One that is distinct. Also, Japanese culture is so distinctive that it also makes it earier to see and identify it.

Right, right. If Japanese or Nigerians or Frenchmen think like you do...that their own skin color or ethnic group or culture or nationality entails the best and the brightest...they too can be racist.

I get that. And I'll bet there are Japanese, Nigerian and French philosophers able to go up into the theoretical/conceptual clouds and make arguments -- create intellectual "platforms" -- just like you do here.

YOU:

Sure, those who are "anti-white" because they claim their own race is intellectually or morally or naturally superior instead...

As far as I am aware the “anti-White” activity, mood, undertaking, strategy (however we may define it) has nothing to do with a reverse- or counter-superiority position.

I thinking your case you’d first have do some reading to gain a sense about what ‘anti-White’ refers to.

You are not prepared for the exchange you seem to want to have.

Note to IC:

Another Mr. Snippet aka Mr. Wiggle!!!

[Alexis Jacobi]

What does any of that have to do with egalitarianism?

You had your chance Phyllo. You’ve done nothing.

If you have a problem with egalitarianism, then write about egalitarianism.

Universities restricting freedom of speech is not egalitarianism. CRT is not egalitarianism. Shrieking girl is not egalitarianism.

I’m not your dog

[phyllo]

You argue "up there" that the Northern European white race is intellectually superior to the black, brown and red "stock".

Um, you have a small problem to resolve: I’ve never said such a thing. And I do not think in those terms. I have a feeling that you do though and you project that onto me.

Note to others:

If you had to sum up AJ's arguments in regard to race and intelligence, what would you conclude?

Why don't you let him sum it up.