AJ: But actually, and as it plays out, your approach [Iambiguous'] is ultimately more didactic. What I do (theorize) is what I am inclined to do by nature and by my situation. You can label it didactic pedantry if you wish. Your terms will not, I do not think, have any effect on the sensible choices I have made.
Iambiguous: What sensible choices? In regard to your own interactions with men and women who are not of Northern European stock, what would you construe to be sensible behaviors? Can you cite examples of behaviors that you deemed not to be sensible? Behaviors more common to those of races other than your own?
In other words, back to this:
No, seriously, you are the one who keeps making reference to Northern Europeans. How are they different from Southern Europeans?
And, in your view, do these differences revolve around things that some Northern Europeans might construe to be more reasonable or more virtuous behaviors? Does superior/inferior enter into it at all?
Would you be okay with Northern Europeans producing children with Southern Europeans? Would both be construed as entirely equal in regard to educational and employment opportunities? Would you treat Southern Europeans exactly the same as you would Northern Europeans? Would you be just as comfortable living in a Southern European community as in a Northern one?
To which Mr. Wiggle responds by going straight back up into his intellectual contraption clouds...
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:37 amIn an incipiently hysterical frame of mind he cannot understand that the sensible choice is to remain within a type of non-commitment (to political programs and action for example). I did not ever speak of any interactions with anyone. But let's examine what I did do: I did say that I will regard it as a 'negative' if the European-derived stock of America is no longer a super-majority. That is, the larger slice of the population. The determining one therefore. This assertion is immediately associated with *evil*. Yet it is not. It has been
made to seem evil though. And this through a causal chain that involves social engineering, propaganda, education, and different mechanisms and tools. I.e. a causal chain of actions.
So I conclude what is obvious: Even to think of these things, to merely contemplate them, has been associated with evil. Why is it important to point this out? Because this type of 'argument' is used all the time, everywhere. Literally we are subsumed in it. So much so that to all appearances we cannot distinguish it from real argument, and therefore free thought.
The questions Iambuguous asks are not to be answered. He asks *questions* that already contain the answers he seeks. And these he can rail against.
No, I ask questions that allow
him to take his "scholarly" intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions between the Northern European stock, the Southern European stock and the black, brown, red and yellow stocks.
Those who think like him are in power and they are intending to
stop the "demographic crisis" in nations like America.
They scoff at his "world of words" and demand action!
"What is to be done?", as they say, to bring that about?
He'll either address that given particular contexts that might precipitate legislation relating to reproduction, education, employment, social interaction and the like -- apartheid? death camps? -- or he'll continue to hide beyond his "theoretical"/"philosophical"...assessments, analyses.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:37 amSo for at least 10 years now, possibly longer, I have been experiencing
this sort of reaction in many different areas (mostly on forums I participate in but also in some personal and non-personal relations) and thinking about it. Through long processes of introspection and consideration I have concluded that the statements I make (for example here) are reasonable, careful, and also moral. I
do not say that they are not difficult areas though.
The classic AJ abstraction!! It tells us nothing at all about what Southern European, black, brown, red or yellow folks can expect if they are members of a community where those in power think like him call the shots. His thinking, his introspection, his philosophical assessments are "reasonable, careful and moral" though.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:37 amI have always said "I am here for my own purposes". I do not mind at all encountering this reaction. True it always results in stifling and conversations that go nowhere. But I am committed to getting all that I can out of it and so I *study* it.
Again, no problem. If pursuing racial stocks didactically and pedantically is his thing fine. As I said there are plenty of others here who will stay up in the clouds with him...endlessly exchanging words that define and defend other words "technically".
But my thing is to take the tools of philosophy out into the world of day-to-day human interactions; and, in particular, pertaining to interactions that come into conflict in regard to moral and political value judgments.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:37 amOne has to say all of this and get it all out there before the meat of the actual terms of conversation are even possible to address.
This I hear all the time from the "serious philosophers": "Only after we can all agree 'technically' about the definition and the meaning of the words we use to encompass our 'ethical theories' can the 'real world' of human social, political and economic relationships ever be properly discussed."
And, for some, of course, that comes to mean "never".
AJ will either "walk his Northern European white folks talk" here with respect to things like race and gender and sexual orientation and Jews or he won't.
