Philosophy Now Forum

Well, this is simply not true. The workplace is being corporatized by more and more people (share holders, etc) every day. In a technical sense, this is what Marx foresaw as capitalism's mobilizing force... not just in worker movement but in types of worker control, decision-making power, and holding larger stakes. In fact, he praised capitalism in several ways... but your view of him is as some kind of malcontent with nefarious purposes. Naw bruh Marx was a political and economic theorist reporting on the facts of history. How it 'moves' and develops and what its patterns are, etc. His perceived anger was toward capitalists and not capitalism... as i said, he praised it. But a man with any sense would be appalled at the living conditions of the vast majority of workers in those pre-industrial cities that were suddenly packed with workers who were ousted from their land, or, considered trespassing unless paying a rent. This is what Marx was witnessing... not happy middle class 21st century Joneses with mortgages and perfect lawns.

But back to the program. The decisive move toward Marxism would be a distribution of ownership of work force, not just in the form of share holding but decision-making power over everything involved in the production and distribution of all our shizzle.

That, I'm afraid, will not happen legislatively; there will never be a revision of business property rights by Congress, so private companies will always exist, i think.

So Marx didn't predict a communist 'reform'... which would be that gradual distribution of work force power over time... but a communist revolution which would be relatively fast. We are entering the age of the POleece State so there will be no revolutions in the streets. It'd be like Bloody Sunday all over again (that fuck-ass Nicholas shoulda been shot five years sooner).

But bro, what in the hell have you been reading about Marx? It's like you source your ideas from Mark Levin's eleventh grade history report on communism.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 6:29 pm But bro, what in the hell have you been reading about Marx? It's like you source your ideas from Mark Levin's eleventh grade history report on communism.

Another question: what haven’t you read? There is a great deal of material out now — ad hominem to be precise — on Marx the man. It complicates the larger picture.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 1:23 pm I've heard some other philosopher, and I can't quite remember which, say something like, "Conservatives argue to prove, and Wokies diagnose." That's very astute. Conservatives believe in things like reason, evidence, logic, dialogue, persuasion...and all Wokies ever do, it seems, is say things like, "You're only saying that because you're a racist," or "because you're a sexist," or "you're a homophobe, and Islamophobe, a white, a Colonialist, a fat-phobic person, an Ablist or a Nazi." In other words, they really have nothing to say relevant to the content of any utterance -- they're just looking for an amateur-diagnosis way of saying, "Whatever you say, I don't have to listen to it, because you're bad."

This all figures, does it not? Let's work through some of it. I think I can grasp the sense in the view that "Conservatives argue to prove, and Wokies diagnose". First, the term 'Wokie' indicates a glossary prejudice. In fact -- in your system -- the comment is 'ad hominem'. But I will accept your term for the sake of simplicity.

The truthful fact of the matter is that in Dissident Right philosophy, and in counter-Liberal ideology, and certainly in Traditional Catholicism or even a Paganism that tends toward the valuation of hierarchical categories, that diagnosis is a HUGE aspect of what they do. The present is sick and deranged, they say, so that pole which could bring wellness and recovery must be defined. And then the *cure* is proposed.

So, this turns your assertion on its head.

I desire to be involved in thoughtful projects which seek out those ways that people have gone off the rails. Where they have lost touch with the capacity to stand up both for defined principles, but also their own interests. I cannot get to agreement for example with Belinda because her *project* is radical universalism -- actually a branch (perversion) of Christian doctrine applied irresponsibly. For the last 10+ years I have, in my spare time, read and researched people who are involved in diagnostic projects. Obviously, Conservative Christian Evangelism is part of that process of defining where people go off the rails. And at the very core of your project is the same motive.

Progressives and Radical Leftists also apply an Rx, and it is based, obviously, on other ideological tenets and desired outcomes.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 12:38 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 12:28 pm You still have not made your case apropos my remark.

What would you like clarified or amplified?

I forget.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 8:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 1:23 pm I've heard some other philosopher, and I can't quite remember which, say something like, "Conservatives argue to prove, and Wokies diagnose." That's very astute. Conservatives believe in things like reason, evidence, logic, dialogue, persuasion...and all Wokies ever do, it seems, is say things like, "You're only saying that because you're a racist," or "because you're a sexist," or "you're a homophobe, and Islamophobe, a white, a Colonialist, a fat-phobic person, an Ablist or a Nazi." In other words, they really have nothing to say relevant to the content of any utterance -- they're just looking for an amateur-diagnosis way of saying, "Whatever you say, I don't have to listen to it, because you're bad."

This all figures, does it not? Let's work through some of it. I think I can grasp the sense in the view that "Conservatives argue to prove, and Wokies diagnose". First, the term 'Wokie' indicates a glossary prejudice. In fact -- in your system -- the comment is 'ad hominem'. But I will accept your term for the sake of simplicity.

The truthful fact of the matter is that in Dissident Right philosophy, and in counter-Liberal ideology, and certainly in Traditional Catholicism or even a Paganism that tends toward the valuation of hierarchical categories, that diagnosis is a HUGE aspect of what they do. The present is sick and deranged, they say, so that pole which could bring wellness and recovery must be defined. And then the *cure* is proposed.

So, this turns your assertion on its head.

I desire to be involved in thoughtful projects which seek out those ways that people have gone off the rails. Where they have lost touch with the capacity to stand up both for defined principles, but also their own interests. I cannot get to agreement for example with Belinda because her *project* is radical universalism -- actually a branch (perversion) of Christian doctrine applied irresponsibly. For the last 10+ years I have, in my spare time, read and researched people who are involved in diagnostic projects. Obviously, Conservative Christian Evangelism is part of that process of defining where people go off the rails. And at the very core of your project is the same motive.

Progressives and Radical Leftists also apply an Rx, and it is based, obviously, on other ideological tenets and desired outcomes.

Please tell me why radical universalism is "perverted". Do you base the claim on a theory of human nature?
Insofar as I endorse radical universalism I go along with the Quakers ----that there is a little bit of God in everyone. Radical universalism is aspirational. You yourself, Alexis, must hope not so?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 8:45 pm Please tell me why radical universalism is "perverted". Do you base the claim on a theory of human nature?

I associate “multiculturalism” as an ideal with the universalism I refer to. I regard it as perverted and misdirected, insofar as those who embrace it, and believe in it, devalue themselves and their own cultural integrity. I mentioned the case of Sweden in the present. The “universalism” expressed itself as a social experiment and as social engineering: deliberately importing people’s incompatible with Sweden’s culture. The idealism did not work out at all. The foundation of the ideology that brought this about should be examined carefully, and revised.

Many on the Dissident Right examine these ideological tenets and define them as having sickly elements. There is an attempt to describe how the ideologies became powerful and what undergirds them. Jonathan Bowden for ample speaks of a “grammar of self-intolerance”.

Would you like more information?

Insofar as I endorse radical universalism I go along with the Quakers ----that there is a little bit of God in everyone. Radical universalism is aspirational. You yourself, Alexis, must hope not so?

Sure, why not? But let them — force them — remigrate back to those lands God supplied them with. Try to remember that I made specific statements about England and the resistance movement developing there.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 8:45 pm Please tell me why radical universalism is "perverted". Do you base the claim on a theory of human nature?

I associate “multiculturalism” as an ideal with the universalism I refer to. I regard it as perverted and misdirected, insofar as those who embrace it, and believe in it, devalue themselves and their own cultural integrity. I mentioned the case of Sweden in the present. The “universalism” expressed itself as a social experiment and as social engineering: deliberately importing people’s incompatible with Sweden’s culture. The idealism did not work out at all. The foundation of the ideology that brought this about should be examined carefully, and revised.

Many on the Dissident Right examine these ideological tenets and define them as having sickly elements. There is an attempt to describe how the ideologies became powerful and what undergirds them. Jonathan Bowden for ample speaks of a “grammar of self-intolerance”.

Would you like more information?

Insofar as I endorse radical universalism I go along with the Quakers ----that there is a little bit of God in everyone. Radical universalism is aspirational. You yourself, Alexis, must hope not so?

Sure, why not? But let them — force them — remigrate back to those lands God supplied them with. Try to remember that I made specific statements about England and the resistance movement developing there.

I don't know what multiculturalism is.
I thought when you said "radical universalism" you meant we are wise when we consider all peoples all cultures when we make political decisions. People are just people who mostly all have the same basic general hopes and fears like getting enough sustenance to keep the kids alive and well, and being loved and valued for ourselves warts and all.

As for the people who wave the St Georges Cross, they too need and want the basics, and in particular they want and need to have their fears about out -groups addressed by politicians, police, and media.

What do you yourself fear? (Immanuel has written simply and explicitly what he himself fears ie Marxism and Communism).

Did God supply Alexis to Colombia? I guess if you were Jew you would be a Zionist Jew. I am more like that American President who said "Ich bin Berliner".

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 8:29 pm I desire to be involved in thoughtful projects which seek out those ways that people have gone off the rails.

Wow. You sure don't talk like it. Instead, you cavil with the speaker, instead of facing the ideas. In fact, you seem the very paradigm of somebody who's "off the rails."

Less ego and wild imagining, much more substance would be a welcome change. But I don't expect it. Pleas for non-fallacious reason don't seem to dent you.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 6:29 pm Well, this is simply not true.

Sure it is. Even the Neo-Marxists admit that much. Why do you think the Frankfurt School and the turn to "Cultural Marxism" had to happen? It was because what they call "Crude Marxism" had failed so badly in getting its predicted historical future to materialize. The working class was going to become the middle class, the consumerist class, and rise from the lower levels. Marx didn't see that. But the reason there are no Victorian hellhole workplaces in Europe, and also no bloody "revolution" or "triumph of the Proletariat" there anymore is precisely because Marx was completely wrong. History's embarassed his predictions.

Meanwhile, Marxism has proved to do nothing but crash economies and kill people...over 120 million in the last century alone. There's no comeback from that 100% record of monstrous failure and devastation. The only people who can continue to believe in Marx are naive ideologues...Lenin's "useful idiots," I suppose. And nothing every changes their minds, it seems.

There's no rationally defending Marx today. Both historically and pratically, the man has been exposed as a fraud, and his theories as just dead wrong. I'm astonished you don't know even what the Neo-Marxists know. But look around you, and you'll realize you should know it, even if you don't.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 11:01 pm

seeds wrote:And speaking of "opinions," your subsequent quoting and endorsement of Andrew Torba, the CEO of GAB, which, according to Wiki, is a social networking hub for racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and supporters of Donald Trump...

I posted a video just above of a researcher who investigated Wiki’s processes and bias. I recommend watching it. It reveals a great deal about what “we” are thinking and our analysis of ranges of lies, distortions and calumny.

I had already watched it shortly after you first posted its link.

Are you suggesting that just because some random dude on YouTube did some research and pointed out something shady going on behind the scenes of Wiki's uploading and editing procedures, means that the information in Wiki's estimated 7 million (English) articles is nothing more than distortions or flat-out lies that serve the agenda of who? - lefties? Or perhaps some mysterious cabal of wealthy elites?

Anyway, your casting shade on my use of Wiki is pretty rich coming from someone who, just three days ago, to support an argument you were having with Belinda, quoted a huge section from an article in Wiki regarding the "Eternal Feminine" in this post...

viewtopic.php?p=789510&hilit=Johann+Wolfgang#p789510.

This seems to be a classic case of...

"Rules for Thee, But Not for Me."

I've experienced this Wiki hypocrisy once before from the likes of the unscrupulous (now fading?) Veritas Aequitas,...

...however, I expect better things from you.

Now, how about you addressing the two questions I asked you in this earlier exchange...

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 10:28 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 12:52 am Have you been following what the “righteous ilk” did in Sweden? The imposed multiculturalism has become a disaster. I’ve not been to see but this is what I am told.

These are situations that require “manly resolve” not ridiculous misplaced idealism.

What in the heck do you mean by "manly resolve"?

Furthermore, what's ridiculous about wanting to replace the mythological nonsense implicit in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,...

(whose irreconcilable differences represent the primary reason for why the world is on the brink of destruction)

...with something that makes more sense?

_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 11:25 pm Are you suggesting that just because some random dude on YouTube did some research and pointed out something shady going on behind the scenes of Wiki's uploading and editing procedures, means that the information in Wiki's estimated 7 million (English) articles is nothing more than distortions or flat-out lies that serve the agenda of who? - lefties? Or perhaps some mysterious cabal of wealthy elites?

You used Wiki to pull up prejudiced outlook on Torba. I referred to a researcher who uncovers how political and ideological bias filters in to Wiki editing processes. I do not assume that Wiki is completely useless. But it definitely seems ideologically slanted.

And the man is not a “random dude”.

The point is about ideological consensus and the processes and pressures that mold it.

People are breaking out of those molds, I think, and I merely talk about what is happening and why.

What in the heck do you mean by "manly resolve"?

We in the Occident, over a generation or two, have been feminized. Men have been feminized. Men have participated in these processes. The recovery of masculinity is necessary. Manly resolve flows out of those processes of recovering masculinity. I have observed that this is a significant part of the movement I attempt to describe.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 10:20 pm I don't know what multiculturalism is.

Ask your AI …

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 11:51 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 11:25 pm Are you suggesting that just because some random dude on YouTube did some research and pointed out something shady going on behind the scenes of Wiki's uploading and editing procedures, means that the information in Wiki's estimated 7 million (English) articles is nothing more than distortions or flat-out lies that serve the agenda of who? - lefties? Or perhaps some mysterious cabal of wealthy elites?

You used Wiki to pull up prejudiced outlook on Torba. I referred to a researcher who uncovers how political and ideological bias filters in to Wiki editing processes. I do not assume that Wiki is completely useless. But it definitely seems ideologically slanted.

And the man is not a “random dude”.

The point is about ideological consensus and the processes and pressures that mold it.

People are breaking out of those molds, I think, and I merely talk about what is happening and why.

What in the heck do you mean by "manly resolve"?

We in the Occident, over a generation or two, have been feminized. Men have been feminized. Men have participated in these processes. The recovery of masculinity is necessary. Manly resolve flows out of those processes of recovering masculinity. I have observed that this is a significant part of the movement I attempt to describe.

If only it were so! The upward trajectory continues of extreme right wing "might is right" .

Manly resolve is good only if by " manly resolve " one refers to mercy and kindness, and humility such that the manly man can admit to personal error for the sake of truth. Manly resolve is when the greater man is little David with his sling and stones.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 12:48 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 10:20 pm I don't know what multiculturalism is.

Ask your AI …

ChatGPT says:

"In short: Multiculturalism is the coexistence and promotion of different cultural traditions within the same society, both as a fact and as a guiding principle for how that society organizes itself."

So, yes I endorse multiculturalism but with provisions: there must be concerted efforts to promote friendship between diverse groups.The promotion of multiculturalism involves effort, resources, and expenses.

Multicultruralism is desirable and migration is historically normal. For instance the local mosque here invited some neighbourhood non-Muslims to visit their mosque for a conducted tour with display boards and a friendly young man who conducted the tour and answered questions. The taxi driver, who looked like a Muslim, gave us his passengers the useful advice to wear headscarves while inside the mosque.

Ethnic chauvinism is most likely a means to saving money in the short term

Certainly I understand your position, such as it is. For some, and this is so in my case, I see it as a manifestation of corruption. A perversion of values. Weakening. And also 'feminization'. It is precisely this attitude which was cultivated in our cultures as 'morally good' but which has in fact damaged the integrity of culture -- especially in England from all the reports I receive.

But all of this is just my own view. The actual fact is that among the indigenous populations of England and of Europe average people are fed up with it and manifesting their non-conformity.