Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 5:43 pm No, it’s more like in Russian literature — little father. Or padrecito in Spanish.

But c’mon people!! Fight!! What’s the matter with you!?!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 5:43 pm No, it’s more like in Russian literature — little father. Or padrecito in Spanish.

But c’mon people!! Fight!! What’s the matter with you!?!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:37 pm Alexis Jacobi wrote:

The preference and mandate to protect one's own is universal and not just the white man's prerogative. Refugees inundating Western Europe and America have-------

Yes, but it's not good enough to describe what is the case. You should say what you stand for; tribalism or universalism. You can't live on the moral fence forever. Sheep or goat sort of thing.

Guten Morgen, Fräulein Belinda!

However that may be it was Brother Dubious who wrote what you quoted.

Myself, I have lots of critiques against the major engine of Universalism — Americanism, with entire sets of attending presumptions and ideological determinants.

But one thing I do not have is any power to stop the processes that have been set in motion.

You can indeed sit on a fence.

While there I find myself whistling a snappy little tune . . .

C’mon Iambiguous! Sing it!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pm ...you and *your ilk* look for any sort of statement that you feel gives you a condemning moral authority. And you exploit the circumstance to full advantage.

As I said to Seeds I am pretty certain that the ideology that has you two in its grip is that of Americanism.

"...I have no idea where you with your psychedelic Star-Trek vision of human and planetary destiny stand..."

"...Seeds swoons in psychedelic visions..."

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:27 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:37 pm Alexis Jacobi wrote:



Yes, but it's not good enough to describe what is the case. You should say what you stand for; tribalism or universalism. You can't live on the moral fence forever. Sheep or goat sort of thing.

Guten Morgen, Fräulein Belinda!

However that may be it was Brother Dubious who wrote what you quoted.

Myself, I have lots of critiques against the major engine of Universalism — Americanism, with entire sets of attending presumptions and ideological determinants.

But one thing I do not have is any power to stop the processes that have been set in motion.

You can indeed sit on a fence.

While there I find myself whistling a snappy little tune . . .

C’mon Iambiguous! Sing it!

But Americanism is a form of tribalism. Universalism is people are simply people whatever cultural strait jacket they are persuaded to dress up in.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:50 am Well, in that case go into some detail regarding the components of the "demographic crisis" you speak of. What specially makes it a crisis?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 am So now you are assigning orders to me? “In that case” do thus and such?

Are you saying that you do not recognize that demographic crises exist? Or are you saying that it is wrong that demographic crises exist and one is aware of them?

I'm not ordering you to do anything. I'm simply trying to grasp why you won't bring your theoretical conjectures regarding a demographic crisis down out of the clouds.

And, nope, I don't see any demographic crisis in America. Unless you count the concern that some note in regard to the over-all birth rate "flattening" or declining.

Is that your point? And you noting that the Northern European white stock having greater intelligence "on average" actually does not factor in at all in the crisis?

On the other hand, any number of folks on the right are warning us of the grim consequences of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dem ... 0by%202045.

The crisis revolves precisely around race for them.

How about you? What in your view does the crisis revolve around?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 amClearly the US is in the midst of a multi-layered crisis. Are you saying it is wrong to refer to this in any way?

Again, note the components of this.

And I have noted a number of times that, as with all value judgments of this sort, "I" am no less "fractured and fragmented" when it comes to race. I recognize that my own value judgments here are political prejudices and in no way would I argue that I can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do. The sheer complexity of genes and memes intertwined in ever evolving historical and cultural contexts can make these things profoundly problematic. But the science that I have encountered over the years seems pretty convincing about intelligence and race. There does not appear to be any hierarchy with Northern Europeans on top and blacks on the bottom?

"On average"?

AJ wrote: My review of the evidence, or of the arguments, points to some IQ differences between the large racial groups. So according to those studies the East Asians have a slightly higher average IQ than, say, the average European. They also say that on average the *sub-saharan Africans* have an even lower one than the Europeans.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 amAh now I get it: you take issue with the fact that I reported to you what other people, who had or do engage in studies, have discovered? Am I right then to conclude that the wrong I committed was in making a reference to that? Is that where the moral wrong you are enraged about lies?

Look, Mr. Wiggle, you personally either believe that your own race "on average" is intellectually superior to other races or you don't. You either include your views on race in the "demographic crisis" or you don't. You'll either note a list of policies you'd recommend to end the demographic crisis or you won't. In regard to personal relationships, education, employment and to other government actions.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 am And when I asked how much lower, you shrug that off with, "why does the exact number matter to you?"

And when I asked how much lower, you shrug that off with, "why does the exact number matter to you?"

Well, I suspect it matters considerably less to me than to those of the races that your "studies" argue are less intelligent "on average" than your own Northern European racial stock. In fact, how much lower in intelligence is the Southern European stock? Are they actually closer to the sub-saharan Africans than to the Northern Europeans?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 amYes, and I would ask you that question again: why does this matter to you? If Asians — as they say — have higher IQs on average than Europeans on average what is your reason for wanting to know how much?

A bit? A fraction? If I remember correctly that is what it seemed to be.

Again, that is the question that they would be asking you. I don't believe that race is a factor in regard to intelligence. I'm only curious regarding how you do connect the dots existentially between whatever you believe about race, the demographic crisis and what you believe should done to end it.

And for those folks here who are members of these "on average" inferior races [intellectually], I think they might be very much interested in exploring the part where, for example, you do note the things that the Nazis got right and the things that they got wrong.

Also, the political policies those who do walk your talk might embrace in order to end the demographic crisis. What might the "on average" intellectually inferior folks expect in a community dominated by those of your ilk?

In other words, the part where your "theoretical assessment" here makes contact with the reality of actual human interactions...social, political and economic.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 amBut this Nazi concern is really your question, isn’t it? What then do you see the Nazis as having got right? Why do you ask me to answer a question that I have not expressed any interest in?

Come on, whenever someone makes an argument that is derived in part from the ideas of those like Jensen and Shockley, re race and intelligence...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41065797
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

...any number of folks will connect those dots to the Final Solution.

I'm just curious to know how far down that path you might go if were in a position of power in any particular community. What might people of color and the Jews expect from you?

But: I don't deny that I may be completely wrong regarding how I interpret your posts here.

Though, again, yeah, I do acknowledge that this is what I myself always aim for: connecting the dots existentially between words and worlds.

As for this particular psycho-babble...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:30 amMore accurately you seem to be hopped-up and bordering into hysterical phantasy and projection.

I think that your concept of what you are aiming for is incomplete. It is neurotic projection of disturbed inner content and involves a need to find someone to pick a fight with that motivates you.

No? So that you can live out the frustration of the man John Fowles described in the paragraph you quote often. To burn in impotent frustration or something to that effect?

That must be terribly distressing. Any way to get over it?

Sure, make this all about me.

And the Fowles quote revolves around the manner in which I am myself "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments. And in my belief that in a No God world my own existence itself is essentially meaningless and purposeless.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:10 pmNumerous pages back now, I told you that if you want to converse with me you'd have to both slow down and show more seriousness in relation to those questions and issues which are so fraught and problematic in our present. I also said that you could get what you want from me -- to the degree that you are up-front and honest about what you are up to.

But where I would start is definitely by making it also about you. That is very different from saying 'all of only about you'. But what is *you*? Who is this person with these strangely formed, or malformed, ideological problems? That is certainly a good question to ask insofar as you clearly wish to assume a role of 'moral judge'.

I said that to talk to me you will have to amend your ways. That means you are going to have to be willing to examine yourself as subject. Similarly to demands made on Immanuel Can. The question I have is What is this moral imperiousness that empowers you to think and believe that your particular assessments are the right ones? What is its origin? What empowers it and gives it life?

Given your recent performances I have a strong sense that you will shoot back and make references to 'wiggling' (not agreeing to your condemnatory approach) and remaining up in intellectual heights instead of getting down on the ground which, for you, means constructing a Nazi-like regime and state. Your entire premise is ridiculous, in my view, and your tactic is non-different from argument games that are played with gusto in our culture in our present. Because you demonstrate that you too play these games you implicate yourself in ways that I think it fair to identify and call out.

So two statements I will make: One is that you are for me the subject to be examined. And two is that the best method for that examination is an intellectual and philosophical one. If you say "No! I want you to reveal a social cleansing plan and I want you to talk about internment camps and also about how the millions of bodies will be disposed of" -- this is in fact what your *argument* and your entire presentation resolves into, it is there, right there, that you have made yourself a subject necessarily.

So what is going on in you?

But if you interject here and say "No! I refuse to let you off the hook! YOU are the subject here and I am inquiring of you!" I will then respond and say "Except I am not making any recommendations at all and I am not involved in political praxis or in implementing any 'programs'". And if you then ask "Why?! Why are you not building internment centers?! Why have you not contracted out for the body disposal systems?! How bloodless of you?! Won't you 'grow a pair"? At that point I will simply recommend that you try to find a therapist or in any case some interlocutor who can help you with your problems.

Is this making any sense to you? Given your recent performances I can't imagine that it is. But one can hope, no?

So now I am going to tell you how I orient myself in relation to all the problematic issues and questions. Are you ready? I see myself as being in a process of seeking out and considering the ideas and viewpoints of people who think very very differently from how I do. In a process means I am doing that, not that I have concluded it. So for example if I refer to Shockley by the reference it does not mean that I am advocating Shockley's ideas or using him as a conversational proxy. The same can be said if for example I make a reference to Noam Chomsky. But the list of people who I have bothered to read first-hand is extensive and in fact that in itself is some part of my 'platform' in these conversations: My view is that it is imperative to read widely and to be familiar with how people, other people with very different ideas about things, think.

And my primary assertion is that one must read them first-hand and avoid relying on opinions formed about them buy others. Note that you made what I consider a cardinal mistake and that this mistake flags you. You submitted Wiki articles that frame a topic or person in a morally condemnatory light. For others, perhaps, there would be no issue here as such tactics are common. But for me that is not the case. It is necessary in my view to have read Shockley, Chomsky, Duke and even Hitler yourself before you can fairly offer commentary on any of them.

So I also notice that when you refer (as you bombastically do!) to the National Socialist state you make a related error that is, again in my view, even more egregious. The phenomenon of fascism; the two European wars; the political empire-related power-games that determined these events -- all of these events are complex and also were co-created. The actual examination of the history reveals a significantly different picture than the 'popular version' you seem to work with. That view is based on a Manichaean reduction into a pole of 'good' and a pole of 'evil'. Obviously then your reference to Nazi and Hitler functions in your argumentation [sic] in this crass and simplistic manner. Is this making any sense to you?

Again, based on your recent performances I cannot see how you'd manage to turn things around. The dogs have left the starting gate and they are quite a ways down the track, no?

So then now you may have a glimmer as to why *you* become the subject.

You are (in my view) an outcome of a whole set of causal factors, circumstances, decisions, assessments and all of these things are part-and-parcel of the emergence of a person (a subject) who thinks like you do, reacts like you do, evinces the same moral imperiousness as you do, and as such you are a person (in my view) who shows himself incapable and in fact not interested in clear thinking and reasonable statement-making. That is why I use terms like *hopped-up* and *hysterical* in reference to you.

So with that said let me make a general statement about all those issues that are so concerning to you -- as a man without a defined morality and as one who bizarrely declares himself on the outside of that decisiveness while demonstrating acute involvement in the same seemingly without noticing it.

In my view all the issues that have come up today need to be examined closely and with care in order to understand how the people who form the ideas have come to make the choices that they do make. I have made one reference previously and it is a good one as far as I am concerned: Renaud Camus and his concerns. I regard him as an upstanding intellect. I regard his concerns as having a priori validity. And I regard the cultural debate about French identity as being -- what is the word? -- legitimate and also moral. To put it differently I do not regard it as illegitimate and immoral -- yet I certainly recognize that this is how the issue is painted! Meaning, that in our present cultural and intellectual climate there is only one way to refer to Renaud and his ideas: with condemnatory terms. In that, and right there, we can clearly notice how 'thought control' and 'ideological coercion' function.

Still, and with that said, I also recommend reading people like Kathleen Belew (A Field Guide to White Supremacy) and as I said previously Jai Lynn Yang (One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965) because it is always a good idea to fully understand what I might call 'the other side of the argument' or the other pole.

I asked you whether you recognized that in the US we are deeply involved in a social and cultural crisis. You did not have much to say on the matter. Why? But allow me to make *clarifying statements* then that have bearing on my thought and what I've written in this post. In our present there is a tremendous and an astounding amount and degree of 'thought control'. We are deeply enmeshed in political, social, ideological and also economic struggles and battles of consequence. In this climate the first casuality -- in my opinion -- is the capability of 'thinking freely'. The entire idea of 'freedom' 'free intellectual process' 'free communication of ideas' has been revealed to be a farce. These things, these rights, do not in fact exist. They are being assailed.

And I regard that as one of my primary topics of interest. Such that when I encounter a man like you who carries on like a Bozo and a victim of these stifling processes I am inspired to confront that man -- as the topic and as the subject.

Now, is any of this making sense to you?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:29 pm If you are of a race other than Northern European white stock [or are a Jew] would you be willing to befriend him yourself after reading it? Are you satisfied that if those in power who shared AJ's theoretical convictions set about successfully ending the demographic crisis in America, it would be agreeable with you? Are you satisfied that AJ could not possibly be further removed from those Nazis among us who actually embrace Hitler and his policies?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 12:00 am Apparently Jacobi has been on British TV, here's a clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEVQWBn20ws

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:04 pm Of course, it's allowed. Here.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:34 pm Therefore the distorted reactions, the gratuitous Nazi references, the implied racism and racist policies. Even before anything is said.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 7:04 pmCome on, you know how these things often unfold in forums like this and over at ILP. It's like the phone game. There's the OP. But then by the end of the thread there can be discussions and exchanges that bear little or no resemblance at all to the OP. AJ posted things here relating to race and intelligence. I reacted to that given the manner in which here in America today there is open talk [even in the mainstream media] of fascism. Those who are flagrantly racist and see the "demographic crisis" as having begun when America stopped living in the 1950s. Some being avowed Nazis. So, I'm curious as to where AJ fits into all of that. Connecting the dots between what I construed to be his pedantic theoretical assessments and actual flesh and blood folks who would naturally be curious when someone argues that "on average" they are of a race that intellectually is dumber than those of other races. The Northern European white race in particular.

If AJ is not a racist, fine. But how does he connect the dots between his theoretical views on race, the demographic crisis and "what is to be done" to end it?

Isn't interested in going there? Well, why not? I've made it crystal clear that my own interest in philosophy revolves around connecting those dots. Otherwise philosophy becomes something that Will Durant's "epistemologists" pursue. Something that get's further and further removed from the actual lives that we live.

But when you make arguments that intellectually -- culturally? morally? -- there is a racial hierarchy, those who are not of the race that you put on top are going to wonder what their fate might be if you are in a position of power in their community. Given the historical instances of this.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmNow we move toward the core of the issue. I start from the assertion, from the understanding, that *for people like you* and for this culture, and this particular time that we are in, that you use a term like *racist* to control what other people can both think and say. Racist is a 'hot-word' and it is used (by people like you) to shut down anyone who says anything sensed by you to be a prohibited expression. This gives you the right to jump down with both feet on those you label with the term. There are numerous lunatics on this forum who use that term, and other terms like Nazi, as a way to control discourse. It is a common tactic today. It is part of a *function* and that function is to control thought and expression. This usage has a history and the history can be known.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmSo what I do, in case you have not noticed (those like you are enormously slow in this regard because your preposterous 'moral authority' blinds you) is to neither confirm or deny your accusation. Why? Simple. It is part of a coercive game that you play, but it is a game with consequences. The second that one cooperates with you (answering your 'questions' and demands for more information) one has fallen into the trap that you set. Discourse with people like you is a trap. You are a trap.

I have noted a number of times that, as with all value judgments of this sort, "I" am no less "fractured and fragmented" when it comes to race. I recognize that my own value judgments here are political prejudices and in no way would I argue that I can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do. The sheer complexity of genes and memes intertwined in ever evolving historical and cultural contexts can make these things profoundly problematic. But the science that I have encountered over the years seems pretty convincing about intelligence and race. There does not appear to be any hierarchy with Northern Europeans on top and blacks on the bottom.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmIs any of this getting through?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmWho gave you the right to decide who and who is not a racist? Who gives you the authority to act as a moral judge? What ideological predicates did you absorb, or which were installed in you, that has allowed you to tell other people what they should think about *race* and any other topic? Are you aware of the degree that multiculturalism and its ideology is just that, an ideological stance? Are you aware as well that though anti-racism sounds like a fine and noble thing the doctrines associated with it, and the social policy, end up as destructive to race-categories? Are you aware as well that anti-racism describes itself as preserving of the rights of those it defends? But if anti-racism ends up destroying the category of 'race distinction', then when it is examined closely it may not be the noble thing it tarts itself up to be.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmWhen one has come under the spell of numerous Progressive declarations one becomes blind to subtleties as I have just described. And I have made it very clear that I see Progressivism and our modern form of Egalitarianism as Marxian tools -- and I regard these as inherently destructive.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmYou see, you are an activist, not me. My interest is in exploring why people have the ideas (and values) they do. But your object is to act in some way against those whose ideas and values you do not like.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmWhat you say, then, to that is "OK, now tell me how you and *your ilk* are going to enact the social cleaning regime?" But I am not and I would not call for any such thing.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmWhat I am saying is that I definitely consider it a valid concern for a given community -- you can pick any one you wish -- to recognize their own selves, their own somatic being (their bodily selves) as something defensible. The validity of the assertion is easiest to see when some *other* is examined.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmWhat is the inverse of this choice or attitude? It is equally important to examine it and see what it is comprised of. The inverse is a social policy, supported by an activist's ideology, that renders many sorts of identifications as immoral. Once immorality is established then a very powerful tool of 'blame & shame' is exploited. This explains what you are up to.

Again, to say what I am saying is not to make a statement in favor of a racist policy. And it is definitely not any sort of admission or declaration about my own position. I do not really have a position. What I have is interest in the topic and interest in what is going on contemporaneously in our culture and cultures.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmAs an example I am aware that relatively Sweden opened the immigration gates and significantly altered the demographic of the nation. This was undertaken, I gather, by high-minded progressive types. The result is said to be cultural and social conflict which is now tearing at the social fabric (I have never visited Sweden so I only can refer to anecdotes).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:31 pmAs I said to Seeds I am pretty certain that the ideol7ogy that has you two in its grip is that of Americanism. Americanism involves a vast imposition of values on everyone else. It is a multi-faceted model involving political forms, cultural practice, and of course ideologies of egalitarianism and also of democracy (a sham-concept if ever touted as a value by an American). Americanism, similarly in this sense to the way declarations of anti-racism function, ends up leveling and destroying other cultures and folkways. There is something insidious in it.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:27 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:06 pm

Guten Morgen, Fräulein Belinda!

However that may be it was Brother Dubious who wrote what you quoted.

Myself, I have lots of critiques against the major engine of Universalism — Americanism, with entire sets of attending presumptions and ideological determinants.

But one thing I do not have is any power to stop the processes that have been set in motion.

You can indeed sit on a fence.

While there I find myself whistling a snappy little tune . . .

C’mon Iambiguous! Sing it!

But Americanism is a form of tribalism. Universalism is people are simply people whatever cultural strait jacket they are persuaded to dress up in.

Humans have always been tribalistic. Even at this time the tendency hasn't been reduced as exemplified most seriously in the sports world. Universalism can best be understood biologically but hardly ever and probably never in practice. Universalism requires a reticence in not taking sides which is almost impossible to do...a kind of unconditional neutrality which rarely yields to judgement. Universalism, as grand as it sounds, is not the goal. There isn't enough definitional or conceptual in it to create a corresponding reality, which, even if it could, may not be desirable.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:29 am Right. And what does this have to do with race and ethnicity? And are all Swedes of the opinion that "somatically" they should avoid interaction with those who are not like them? Or are there right-wing racists political factions there [as there are in America] who are stirring up the pot politically?

Look, to the extent that those who come to Sweden and become citizens, they are expected to obey the laws of the land just like everyone else. And if they pursue traditions that break the laws, arrest them. And if they are in the country illegally, stop that. But to make it all about Northern European stock sticking together and rejecting all those who are not of "our kind", that's racism. And the science I've come into contact with rejects that as a basis for either de jure or de facto keeping communities "separate but equal". And, of course, they are never really equal. It's just that some take the so-called inherent inequality all the way to the gas chambers.