Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

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!?!

[phyllo]

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!?!

Why?

You can't stop Harbal.

You can't stop IC.

You can't stop Biggus.

[promethean75]

Harbal, IC and Biggus want to send this one out to you, AJ.

https://youtu.be/u_CORmb52PU

That's Biggus aka Scarface rapping. I place IC as Bushwick Bill and Harbal as Willie D

[Harbal]

No, it’s more like in Russian literature — little father. Or padrecito in Spanish.

Russian literature?

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

Fight?

[Belinda]

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!

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

[seeds]

_______

AJ stated the following to iambiguous:

...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.

Actually, I'm more under the influence of whatever one might call the ideology of "planetism"...



...no, make that "universalism"...



...no, make that "multiversalism"...



...no (dang it), make that in the grip of whatever "ism" pertains to one who is in search of the truth of the "ALL-THAT-IS," which, in my crazy (but plausible) theory, is more like this...



In which case, one would need some kind of cosmic microscope to look back down to locate this "Americanism" you speak of.

The bottom line is that because "your ilk" consists of people such as the Jonathan Bowden's and the Renaud Camus's of the world, while, on the other hand, "my ilk" consists of chaps like this guy,...



...I therefore suggest that you take heed of what you stated in an earlier post...

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

...and stop trying to pigeon-hole me somewhere in the bubble of the imaginary world you've created for yourself.

And speaking of creating imaginary worlds, if nothing else, it seems to me that a person with your ample ego would...

(at least for purely entertainment purposes)

...be interested in a theory that suggests that you, Alexis Jacobi, are in possession of the inherent potential of being able to create a literal universe out of the living mental fabric of your very own inner being (just as the Creator of this universe is alleged to have done).

Yeah, yeah, I know,...

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

...but at least they are visions of "hopefulness" that suggest that humans are something wonderful with an amazing and eternally fruitful purpose,...

...as opposed to simply being multi-colored meat sacs that need to be categorized and partitioned off from one another based on the assessments of semi-conscious somnambulants such as, again, the Jonathan Bowden's and the Renaud Camus's of the world.

Again, Alexis, your lack of awareness of the fact that you are sleepwalking through life has you boxing with the shadows in Plato's cave.
_______

[Dubious]

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.

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.

[phyllo]

Depends what one means by 'universalism'.

It could mean a set of laws applied fairly to everyone such as a declaration of human rights and international laws supporting it.

It could mean more or less.

[iambiguous]

Well, in that case go into some detail regarding the components of the "demographic crisis" you speak of. What specially makes it a crisis?

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?

Clearly 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.

Ah 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.

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?

Yes, 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.

But 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...

More 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.

Numerous 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?

Note to others:

For any of you who actually read through this latest "wall of words" above, please advise if he actually did respond specifically to the points I raised above.

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]

Apparently Jacobi has been on British TV, here's a clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEVQWBn20ws

[Alexis Jacobi]

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?

Oh so now it’s a popularity contest!

Well, people, you Others: come out in strong favor of me and with honeyed words …

… or it’s off to the internment camps with you!

[attofishpi]

Apparently Jacobi has been on British TV, here's a clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEVQWBn20ws

...Jacobi doesn't remind my of Jimmy Carr in the slightest.

[iambiguous]

Of course, it's allowed. Here.

Therefore the distorted reactions, the gratuitous Nazi references, the implied racism and racist policies. Even before anything is said.

Come 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.

Now 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.

Fine. These are your conclusions about me regarding the conclusions you suspect I am making about you.

But, in my view, you still refuse to bring your theoretical conjectures about race and intelligence -- and morality and culture? -- down out of the intellectual clouds in regard to how you imagine those of different races interacting either in terms of full equality in an interracial community or, instead, favoring different races/nationalities interacting "somatically" among their own kind. Also, the extent to which, given your own understanding of the "demographic crisis" in America, the reality of race is or is not a factor. And, again, finally, given historical instances of those making a distinction between races in regard to intelligence [as with Hitler] are there any aspects of their policies that you construe to be worthy of consideration given a community that you would deem to reflect the best of all possible worlds.

So 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.

How often do I have to explain that...

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.

In no way, shape or form am I attempting to present myself as some kind of "moral authority" here.

I'm simply attempting to bring what I construe to be your pedantic "wall of words" intellectual assessment down to Earth in order "illustrate your text" pertaining to race, racism, our demographic crisis and the reaction of those people of color who might get suspicious when they hear someone suggest that "on average" the Northern European white stock race possesses a greater intelligence.

Is any of this getting through?

No, not given the answers that I am most curious about here.

instead, as is often the case with phyllo, your point is to make this all about me:

Who 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.

Just more of the same intellectual bullshit that, in my view, is far, far removed from describing your own personal assessment of what and who are driving our demographic crisis...and what policies pertaining to relationships, education, employment, culture and the like that you feel would stem the tide.

When 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.

Fine. Arguments can be made here that in no way involve either race or ethnicity or Jews. Is that the argument that you are making? Japanese, Nigerians and Frenchmen of all colors and ethnic backgrounds joined together in full equality to push back Progressivism, Marxism and Egalitarianism? Is that what you are advocating?

If so, then, sure, I misconstrued your points above.

Then this line...

You 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.

Note to the people of color and the Jews, from AJ:

"Look, there may be some political activists who actually do walk my talk about intelligence and race and ethnicity and culture and morality...but that's not me. My own interest is entirely theoretical...a purely intellectual/philosophical assessment of ideas and values."

Something like that?

What 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.

Okay, you wouldn't go that far, but given this...

What 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.

...what policies would you pursue in order to reward behaviors that bring this about...and that punish the behaviors of those who embrace a multicultural unity of all races and ethnic backgrounds in embracing in turn your own ideological/political agenda?

And given those avowed white nationalists who are flagrant racists...would you confront them for pursuing policies that you yourself utterly reject?

But, instead, all you are capable of is keeping it all way, way, way up in the didactic, analytical, idealistic clouds of abstraction:

What 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.

On the other hand...

As 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).

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.

Then back to this preposterous assessment of me:

As 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.

Given just how fractured and fragmented I am in regard to moral and political value judgments, I could not possibly be less an advocate of "Americanism"!!

And here you remind me of Satyr over at Know Thyself: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2021-race

And talk about a flagrant racist!!

Why don't you join and set him straight.

[Belinda]

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.

By 'universalism' one means not only laws that benefit all people(human rights laws) but also the attitude of individuals who serve the needs of others regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or past history.

Competitive games such as cricket or football have written rules of the game so everyone is playing the same game. Just as necessary to the health of competitive games are the unwritten rules that aim at respecting and honouring the opposition. The contrast between games on the one hand and nationalism, or divisive religions on the other, clearly is that nationalists and divisive religionists don't respect or honour the opposition.

Tribalism is caused by fear: universalism is caused by love. Fear is often a life -saving attitude : love is risky. Sheep : goats. Men are pilgrims on their quest to be righteous and they progress from fear towards love.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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?

Race, national origin, cultural affiliation, and also existential tendency — all of these things together unquestionably operate together. Your mistake is to deny that totality and reduce concerns about the make up of a society to concerns you define as racist. That term is ideological. Its function is to undermine and invalidate the larger range of concerns just outlined.

Certainly Swedes and Swedish culture — intensely ‘progressive’ — are not in agreement with those who seek to preserve Swedish culture. And it is that faction which opened the door to mass immigration and bringing in refugees. The plan was noble in that sense, but the result seems to have been negative. And this has strengthened a reactive Right faction taking a more traditionally nationalist perspective.

I think this affirms the gist of your ‘questions’. Ie your statements.

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.

I don’t think you have much or any background in the actual social problems in Sweden that have resulted from recent immigration policy shifts.

Culture and society and citizenship are much more than just the laws and obedience to them. Sweden, according to critics of recent policy changes, took steps that are undermining national identity. A nation is more than an ideological proposition and citizenship based on that alone is described as problematic to the foundation of nationhood.

These are not issues of science — they are issues of culture and nationhood.

Sweden is for this reason illustrative of a larger problem: idealistic reworking of traditional cultural identification in accord with ideological precepts.

Simply put there is a growing percentage of Sweden’s citizens who now question the immigration policy of recent years.

Are they morally wrong? Are they ‘racists’? Yes according to your assertions. The argument I make is that such an accusation can be critically examined. The charge of racist is a tool to suppress genuine and moral concerns.