South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Dubious]

That's interesting. I often wondered if a Jew is still a Jew if he negates that which made him a Jew. The question of one's Jewishness begins most famously with Spinoza. Freud too was negator of the very thing which caused Jews to be or become Jews. This is no-longer unusual among the more intelligent in the tribe.

Reminds me of a story. A man walked along a road and came across a very cleverly designed trap. He was himself clever enough not to walk into it. However — mysteriously — instead of walking on he built a very similar trap, nearly identical but with certain notable differences, and concealed himself in a bush awaiting a victim. Then — here the story moves into absurd territory and meaning becomes unreliable — an old psychotic crone was attracted to both traps because of shiny features and textures. She sits next to each mumbling incoherently and every once in a while barking.

Huh? If you are confused by the story please understand that I don’t get it either.

No idea what you're talking about! What I've written is perfectly clear; what you've written is as clear as mud.

The obvious question...why bother or waste time attempting to insert some meaning into it only to find out the effort wasn't worth the return.

[Atla]

Where did Mike go? I was just getting started with turning AI against him.

[accelafine]

You mean 'Demonic Dessert'...

[Atla]

More AI stuff

Does the following speech misrepresent determinism by ignoring the fact that determinists can be racist too, some can even use determinism as justification for their racism? Summary only. Here is the speech:

"Conclusion: Free Will Is the Hidden Engine of Racism

You’re absolutely right that determinism can be misused—just like any framework. If someone claims determinism proves certain groups are “mentally inferior,” they’re not applying determinism; they’re abusing it to smuggle in a hierarchy they’ve already decided on. That’s not a causal analysis—it’s biological essentialism, dressed up in scientific language.

But here’s the difference: true determinism, rooted in physics and systems thinking, doesn’t stop at surface-level traits like IQ scores. It demands we ask: why are there disparities in test results? What caused the environmental, nutritional, educational, and systemic conditions that shape those outcomes?

Determinism, when applied rigorously, doesn’t say “they’re born this way.” It says “nothing happens without a cause.” And that includes the long history of exploitation, colonialism, trauma, and inequality that shaped global disparities—including in Africa.

So no—I’m not saying determinism solves everything. I’m saying it forces us to stop blaming people for conditions they didn’t create. And that shift in perspective is key to building systems that are fairer, more humane, and more grounded in reality.

Free will thinking, by contrast, too often assumes: “they chose this.” And that’s how racism, classism, and cruelty get justified.

So it’s not that determinism is a magic solution. It’s that free will is often the hidden fuel behind moral judgment, blame, and systemic neglect. That’s worth calling out."

Summary:

Yes, the speech partially misrepresents determinism by portraying it as inherently anti-racist while ignoring that determinism itself can be, and has been, co-opted by racists. While the speaker rightly critiques misuses of determinism (e.g., biological essentialism), they overlook that such misuses are not rare exceptions but recurring historical patterns. The speech also implies that determinism naturally leads to compassionate, systemic analysis—a normative stance that doesn't account for the ways determinism has been used to justify racist ideologies under the guise of scientific objectivity. So, while the speech promotes a humanistic interpretation of determinism, it sidesteps the ideology's susceptibility to being weaponized.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's interesting. I often wondered if a Jew is still a Jew if he negates that which made him a Jew. The question of one's Jewishness begins most famously with Spinoza. Freud too was negator of the very thing which caused Jews to be or become Jews. This is no-longer unusual among the more intelligent in the tribe.

Having explained myself by other means for my opaque and somewhat ridiculous ’story’, please forgive it and me.

I have some thought on your question:

Given the conditions of our present there are few more dangerous ‘trap-like’ topics than that of Jews, Jewish identity, the Jewish project in history, Jewishness and Israel identification (which has become divorced to varying degrees from Halachic Judaism and the rules of strict religious life), and of course the important question of Jewish influence within the Occident and indeed in our present.

Since we exist and certainly most who participate in this on-going forum “conversation” are post-Christians, it is in this sense that post-Christians must be post-Judaic. Spinoza is a good example of a man with a necessarily post-religious perspective. And if one carries his assertions and conclusions forward, they dovetail into anti-Christian postures that can only be anti-Judaism positions. No such “God” as the weird personality Yahweh selected a given people, these are cultural fictions. Thus the Judaic historical project, defined by Talmudic writing and Rabbinic theory, must be just as contrived, and just as false, as European Christian-Catholicism.

In my view, if the acute anti-Christian position, which is I think certainly the position of most of “educated Europe”, and definitely that of the PN community, and philosophy today, is given validity (and these folks are extremely vocal in expressing themselves) what is strangely un-stated is that this position must completely undermine both Judaism and Jewish identity as such.

Once the pillars of one collapse, the pillars of the other must also collapse. And going further once the pillars that held up Christianity and Judaism are collapsed, all postures depending on such storyfied metaphysics and supernaturalism collapse together.

And when this process accelerates to its maximal position of ‘logical inevitability’, my view is that then and there men who devise pictures and non-metaphysical metaphysics along the lines of our own philosophical monster BigMike appear on the horizon.

All that is left (as with Spinoza) is Nature. The four physics principles. Thus — in one degree or another — everyone who participates in the modern trend in philosophy must agree essentially with BigMike’s radical reductionism as a general exposition of truth.

Once the aspect of religiousness as a long-ranging historical project to which one becomes obligated by supernatural command has become emptied of its imperative, what is left is not no imperative at all. Indeed, the momentum of the locomotive continues forward, but in manners that are unhinged from reason. The imperative moves to (perhaps?) an unconscious plane, or the imperative jumps tracks and — let’s take historical diaspora Judaism as an example — becomes an intense Zionism and Jewish nationalism.

Religious halachic Jews were content to remain within temporal history, suffering the Galut, and understanding it as God’s will for Jewry. But Zionism developed among (let us say) “Spinozan” atheistic Jews who were also post-Enlightenment intellects. Their Zionism reflected religious zealousness as if a command or decision made by Yahweh, and it is this imperative I mention as a locomotive that keeps running on fuels originated elsewhere and in “actual belief”, but must validate itself through other means.

Zionism complicates Jewish history tremendously. And if one simply relies on the religious narrative to provide “God’s answer to Zionism” (many Orthodox Jews cannot validate Israeli nationalism), Zionism cannot stand. Just as right now Israeli culture is stressed, torn and brought right to the edge of social and political disaster, the entire project is insanely complex and no one seems to have any idea how to sort it out.

[accelafine]

Is there any actual point to that gargantuan word salad?
No one's asking you to 'sort it out'. It's none of your business

[henry quirk]

It all might go down easier, veg, with a lil vinaigrette.

[accelafine]

Who else wrote extensively about how to solve (sort out) the 'Jewish Problem'?

It's not exactly difficult to see where Alexis Jacobi gets his inspiration from.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some of those participating here — I refuse to name names! — are entirely ignorant of 19th and 20th century European developments, not the least being the Jewish Emancipation, and have certainly have never read a Jewish-authored history.

What I have written my dear, drooling baboons, has been discussed and is discussed in Jewish essays, histories, journals, and in the Israeli periodical Haaretz.

The fact is there is no single people who have on the whole contributed more of positive content than Jews.

Is even that statement to you retarded children evidence of antisemitism?!

I am reminded of Aldous Huxley’s “Orgy-Porgy” in Brave New World. Certain terms so excite a deranged imagination that they induce an orgy. Total, conditioned reflexiveness. Similarly, you illiterate mongrels, any mention of the words The Jews invokes in you pitiable minds the dark specter of Adolf Hitler!

How did you nutjobs wind up here?!?

[accelafine]

Oh dear. How awful to be 'misunderstood' when one insists on hiding behind incoherent and cowardly word salads that 'appear' to have no point. One could almost say that one gets what one deserves.
It serves as a good lesson for those who say that clarity of language is 'pointless' and that 'vague approximation' is good enough because others will 'get the gist'. Tell that to a lawyer.
This forum is rife with prolific salad makers. Good for their bowels I suppose

Ps. People who use the term 'The Jews' are invariably what FDP refers to as nazis.

[Dubious]

In my view, if the acute anti-Christian position, which is I think certainly the position of most of “educated Europe”, and definitely that of the PN community, and philosophy today, is given validity (and these folks are extremely vocal in expressing themselves) what is strangely un-stated is that this position must completely undermine both Judaism and Jewish identity as such.

I can't agree. The Jews have always been a distinct group, ethnically, culturally and even genetically...forged by a very long history which precedes Christianity by at least a thousand years. These are two separations which should not be conflated into a single destiny. It was a borrowing by the early Christians as a way to endorse the divinity of Jesus but, as we know, such was never accepted by the Jews. Ergo, their history, culture and identity remains, on the whole indigenous to themselves.

Once the pillars of one collapse, the pillars of the other must also collapse. And going further once the pillars that held up Christianity and Judaism are collapsed, all postures depending on such storyfied metaphysics and supernaturalism collapse together.

In the case of Judaism it's the tradition which remains upholding and cementing their identity as Jews. Contrary to Christians, Jews who are atheistic are not generally culturally atheistic; they remain Jews, whereas a Christian who ceases to believe can no-longer be qualified as Christian.

All that is left (as with Spinoza) is Nature. The four physics principles. Thus — in one degree or another — everyone who participates in the modern trend in philosophy must agree essentially with BigMike’s radical reductionism as a general exposition of truth.

What remains indisputable is that determinism is a physical fact and not merely a philosophical opinion. Equally factual is that determinism in itself predetermines nothing, and any kind of radical reductionism under the rubric of determinism remains a radical error.

Zionism complicates Jewish history tremendously. And if one simply relies on the religious narrative to provide “God’s answer to Zionism” (many Orthodox Jews cannot validate Israeli nationalism), Zionism cannot stand.

It's all so theoretical! One can also say that Zionism is the most recent and perhaps inevitable manifestation of the Jewish saga after a long history of on and off persecution; one which does not depend on god or god's word as much as the main events in the 20th century and prior where the Zionistic urges and wish fulfillment may have run counter to any belief in god's so-called biblical endorsement of it...one in which Old Testament rights were invoked as an excuse for a purely secular intent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can't agree. The Jews have always been a distinct group, ethnically, culturally and even genetically...forged by a very long history which precedes Christianity by at least a thousand years. These are two separations which should not be conflated into a single destiny. It was a borrowing by the early Christians as a way to endorse the divinity of Jesus but, as we know, such was never accepted by the Jews. Ergo, their history, culture and identity remains, on the whole indigenous to themselves.

This is all true and very much so. I don’t sense that you grasped my point though. I’ll try it again.

Christian belief is constructed upon a metaphysical and supernaturalist platform. Judaism is the ur-form of Christian belief, or an extension of it, and is built upon the same platform. When what upholds Christian belief (supernaturalism, miracles, God’s intervention in history, and a mandate to transform the world: tikkun olam), is undermined and no longer understood to be real, the system collapses.

Similarly, when a man like Spinoza dis-believes in every tenet that supported Jewish sense of historical mission, Jewish chosenness, and of course the elements of the Law, he does what many non- and anti-Christians today do: undermine the belief construct as a system. (As you know Spinoza was very harshly excommunicated).

The issue of distinction as well as the time Hebrews have been around is irrelevant. The entire belief-construct of both belief-systems are fundamentally undermined by the same effort. Undermine one, both are fundamentally undermined.

Still, I do grasp the distinction between genetic Judaism and that of Christian conversion by moral acceptance.

It was a borrowing by the early Christians as a way to endorse the divinity of Jesus

Since Paul, the Apostles and nearly all first Christians were themselves Jews, the word borrowing does not quite fit.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What remains indisputable is that determinism is a physical fact and not merely a philosophical opinion. Equally factual is that determinism in itself predetermines nothing, and any kind of radical reductionism under the rubric of determinism remains a radical error.

My view goes like this: I think I can accept the notion of determinism when it pertains to the non-conscious world. It is when our consciousness, dim or partial as it may be, enters the world that non-determined choice also enters. A mouse or a dog or a parrot also have rudiments of choice (in the sense I imply) but only humans have it to a degree that matters. This, in my view, places great emphasis on “the honing of consciousness”.

The radical reduction of the recognition and valuation of human agency does indeed seem to be a radical error.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One can also say that Zionism is the most recent and perhaps inevitable manifestation of the Jewish saga after a long history of on and off persecution; one which does not depend on god or god's word as much as the main events in the 20th century and prior where the Zionistic urges and wish fulfillment may have run counter to any belief in god's so-called biblical endorsement of it...one in which Old Testament rights were invoked as an excuse for a purely secular intent.

I can follow much of this, I think. Except that you are not speaking as those within Judaism speak. Your position is socio-historical and coming from the outside, as it were.

For many Orthodox Jews Zionism (as a manifestation of human will or as reaction) is a terrible and a consequential error that itself will provoke disaster. It is contrarybto God’s will to put it plainly. This is not me telling you what my view is, it is me repeating what their view is.

It is very easy (for us, for many Jews, for many people generally) to grasp Zionism as a necessary and logical reaction to events in Europe.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ps. People who use the term 'The Jews' are invariably what FDP refers to as nazis.

You mindless, insipid, drooling child!

The Jew: Essays from Martin Buber’s Journal, Der Jude, 1916-1928, selected, edited, and introduced by Arthur A. Cohen.

… and a thousand more instances.