Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:47 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 5:44 am
As I recall, you think that transgenders and homosexuals are deviants...threatening our civilization.. You think that on average the Northern European white stock is intellectually superior to black, brown and red folks. And, as I recall, you do not have much good to say about Jews.
Have you heard of Max Nordau? He wrote a book called
Degeneration (Entartung, 1892-93). He was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family but himself became "thoroughly assimilated" and did not practice Judaism. He is said to have been agnostic on those ultimate theological questions. (He is perhaps most known as a Zionist who determined that Europe would be unlivable for Jews, even after the Emancipation, and therefore advocated for the Zionist opinion).
The idea of
degeneracy is one that has been with us for a long time. There are conflicting opinions as to whether it can be considered real, or whether it is a type of romantic notion, more emoted than genuinely verifiable, through which social critics and others express their *lamentations* about the fallen state of the present.
Do you notice how I wrote that paragraph? I wrote it 'from a certain distance' and the means of expression I chose are those which allow me to entertain an idea, to consider its merits or lack of merits, without making any specific commitment and without
advocation. There is a reason why I avoid *making commitments* and advocating, and in some sense at least it could be said to be related to your caution about "words into worlds" (which is a respectable idea).
It is better for all concerned (here in a supposedly philosophical environment) to approach ideas, initially and as a starting point, from that distance and to work our way through them in a careful, thoughtful way.
Homosexuality, transgenderism and a great deal that constitutes *deviant sexuality* has been, and remains, problematic not just for an individual, but has always been problematic. Even for example in Ancient Greek culture where, among the upper echelons, those homosexual expressions were never fully accepted culture-wide. I do not think there is any culture that has not had, or does not have, *problems* with the normalization of deviant sexual expressions. I.e. those that deviate from the conventional norms. But the term 'conventional norm' is itself somewhat problematic because, in fact, it is in our own culture over the last 300 years (approximately) where we -- that is Europeans and Europe -- have concretized those matrimonial forms that I define as 'normal' (and also as good, or productively positive, etc.). In this sense -- and I am certain of this -- we (i.e. Europe)
invented the type of relationship that we idealize between a man and woman as a couple and which is common today. Invented is not quite the right word.
Arrived at, forged, worked out are better terms.
Is the question completely settled? It is not completely settled. That is obvious is it not? So, we are in times in which the social issues and the social questions come to the fore and are discussed, debated and also
fought over. Here, all that we can do is to broach the topics -- get the issues out on the table so they can be seen and discussed.
So I have dealt, superficially, with two issues: one is degeneracy and *deviancy* in a general sense. The other more specific to sexual deviancy. I did not invent these categories. They existed already. They are part of a long social and cultural discourse.
I can assure you that there is a wide and free-wheeling conversation that has gone on about both social and cultural degeneracy and also about sexual degeneracy and what the potential effects of it is and might be. These discussions have been going on for hundreds of years but they were also discussed thousands of years ago -- for example in Greece and in Rome.
So there is a way to talk about these things in a fair and open manner. And doing so does not have to imply taking one side or the other
necessarily. But note the following: in our political climate to broach a touchy and difficult topic is often taken to mean that you are an
advocate for the view you broach. Or that you are an *activist* trying to round up others to your side for political purposes.
Now, and with that said,
I am aware that there are studies that have made it their object to come up with a general IQ figure for Europe and Europeans, and to compare those averages to averages from, for example, India and other countries in Asia, and then to compare to the averages for Sub-Saharan Africa. I can
reference for example the studies of
J. Philippe Rushton who devoted some part of his career to it.
The other topic you seem to want to focus on is that of Jews, Judaism, antisemitism, the Emancipation, and all that is related to Jewish history and Jewish tribulations. Is this something you really have any interest in at all? Honestly I do not think so. I grew up in a post-Jewish family (a Jewish parent who did not practice married to a Gentile parent) but in an enclave that had a high percentage of Jewish families. All Reform Jews with very limited observance. I went to Reform summer camps -- great fun -- but everything about Judaism seemed totally strange to me. And Reform Judaism is really the last stop before one eventually assimilates. At that point one might say "I come from a Jewish family" or "I am culturally Jewish" but in fact many who are verging into assimilation know very little about Orthodox Judaism and next-to-nothing about Talmudic Judaism.
The actual beliefs of traditional Judaism are -- to put it flatly -- completely absurd. To be defined as 'chosen' and to accept yourself as 'chosen' is an immensely destructive idea. In Talmudic Judaism you -- you Gentiles -- are defined as demonic beings. I am not making this up. You are the *problem* that God is trying to work out, and Jewish history is that working-out process. The belief-system functions like this: in the course of time it is the bona-fide Jew who will rule the world under God's aegis. That is the entire meaning of having been chosen. It has to do with power and rulership and will.
What this means -- I mean what I came to understand -- is that Orthodox and Talmudic Judaism and its presuppositions contains within itself what is described as antisemitism. Antisemitism is
implied within the tenets of Judaism. The tenets within Hebrew belief -- about the mission of Jews, about selection and also about power --
determine antisemitism. They actually bring it about. The way it is set up is pretty obvious:
We the Jews have been selected by God. If you oppose us you oppose God. If you oppose us and God God will enact vengeance on you.
You do not need to look any further than Genesis to understand this. Joseph winds up in Egypt. He gains favors and administrative power. In the end Joseph manifests himself as a 'plague' and a terrible misfortune for those who took him in.
I did not write this story.
But what I assume you understand -- if you don't you are a total idiot and not just the semi-idiot that you generally appear as -- that no one can discuss Jews, Jewishness, Jewish history, and European opposition to Jewish
encroachment. If you broach the topic
you will likely be destroyed. You run that risk. Therefore, you had better keep your mouth shut.
I use the word
encroachment fairly. The Diaspora cast Jews into the Galut and all that it meant. And there is no doubt whatever about the intensity of Jewish suffering in Europe. But some part of that is tied to Jewish identity. That is, to define oneself as a Jew (and I mean
really as a Jew which is to say an observing, Orthodox Jew since, technically, that is what God demands) is to define oneself as 1) chosen 2) separate and 3) non-assimilable. The Jew who assimilates, and yet still remains identified as a Jew, is something preposterous really. I mean, if you think about it.
Now, must I be defined as an antisemite because I say what I say and understand what I understand? Is seeing and understanding itself a form of
wrongthink?
My view is that it requires intellectual freedom to be able to get to the actual cores and to be able, when there, to think about things. But you have to allow what I call *getting things out on the table for discussion*.
You -- and your *ilk* to employ your word -- do not allow this. Not you, not Flash certainly. In fact I think most people who write on this forum are largely, not completely but largely,
incapable of free thought.
What that means is that the restraints of politically correct thinking are so powerful that, right at the start, you inhibit the process. But
I am not constrained. I choose not to be. So there is nothing that I cannot discuss or think about.
