Helmut, List, While the phrase “Great Replacement” itself was first coined by Renaud Camus (French), its underlying logic that elites (in the Nazi case, Jewish elites) are engineering demographic change to destroy European (read, 'Caucasian) people) is directly continuous with Nazi ideology.
In the USA the 'Great Replacement' theory is a far-right conspiracy theory that claims white populations in Europe and North America are being deliberately 'replaced' by non-white immigrants. The 'theory' holds that immigration is part of a secret international plan by liberal and Jewish elites (George Soros is frequently cited, so antisemitism is again involved) to eventually 'cancel' or erase white people, esp. through the higher birth rates among minorities. The 'blame' is sometimes placed on global institutions, sometimes on particular governments and liberal government leaders. In both Europe and the United States it has had an influence on far-right debates about immigration and encourages and has resulted in violence. Replacement theory has been cited in various manifestos of white supremacists including those perpetrating the El Paso 2019 where 23 were killed and 22 injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_Walmart_shooting and the racist attack in Buffalo, New York which left 10 dead. https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/buffalo-ny-mass-shooting Further afield, one can cite the massacre at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019 where 51 people were killed and 89 injured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings So, what Stephen seems to be referencing in mentioning it in the context of his characterization of 'cultural mixing' as inherently destructive (in fact he frames cultural mixing as inherently "catastrophic") is not a demographic observation but would appear to be a conspiracy theory framing immigration and cultural change as a deliberate attack on European (read, 'white') populations. This makes his comments at least culturally and potentially racially exclusionary. Invoking the "Great Replacement" in the way that he does approaches racial-nationalist territory and appears to me as a coded form of racial nationalism, depending on how much racial identity he ties to culture. Best, Gary R On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 3:53 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, List, > > The "great replacement" is a conspiracy theory by nazis. Two cultures are > not like oil and water, because cultures are there for mutual appropiation, > not for demarcation. Not only in music, but there it is most obvious. I > think it is not only ok to leave the God-question open, but to not leave it > open is blasphemy, as God obviously leaves it open, which we should > respect. Scriptures are never the words of God, though they claim it, and > prophets mainly have their own agendas (career goals). I guess, the best > religious scripture is the Granth Sahib, in which on 1430 pages God is an > object of worship, not of assumption = attempted analysis. > > Best, Helmut > 18. August 2025 um 16:48 > "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > > Jon, Gary, List, > > Jon: “Peirce considered the ‘anthropocentric bias’ of Western philosophy > to be a feature, not a bug" […] "To say, therefore, that a conception is > one natural to man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that > it is anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it > in the eyes of an Exact Logician" (CP 5.47, EP 2:152, 1903). > Gary: “So, in a word: the spirit of the ‘Religions of the Book’ and those > of the East are, in my view, quasi-necessary; the language, symbols, > doctrines and dogmas, however, are mainly insufficient for the needs of our > era.” > > > > Allow me to expand on my motivations for leaving the god question open. > One of them, I've already touched on... the creative void, as first cause, > may itself be the progenitor of life. If so, then this raises questions as > to whether God is a product of life processes (the universe as a unified > collective), or the creator of them… or even both, in the sense of a > god-universe bootstrapping itself into existence. Indeed, is God even > necessary, whether as the creator of life, or the arbiter of moral purpose? > By leaving the god question open, one is forced to address first principles. > > > > First principles? The creative void is one such first principle. Another > is the pervasiveness of maternal love throughout nature. How do the mothers > of so many species know to love their offspring? Where does this come from? > Darwinians typically trivialize maternal love (or any other kind of love) > as an "adaptive trait", an adjunct to the meat-and-potatoes of dumb > stochastic processes. Religious folk, by contrast, might describe it as > God's love pervading throughout nature. I introduce a different slant... > maternal love as of semiotic significance prioritizing the known, an > expression of the tension between the known and the unknown. > > > > An anthropocentric bias would presuppose that only humans are capable of > love, and that its manifestation outside of the human domain is in the form > of "instinct" as an adaptive trait. In this context, maternal love in > non-human animals, as "instinctual", is merely incidental - an artificial > fabrication of God's perfect love that He reserves for humans. With our > anthropocentric interpretation, we lose sight of its semiotic significance, > rich in meaning and purpose… and even, as a first principle in all sentient > life throughout the universe, not just human life on Earth. > > > > On the moral question and its intent... is morality defined by God? Or > does it relate to cultural health and well-being? Self-interest versus the > greater good? Christianity has already demonstrated that morality relates > to the greater good that makes progress in cultures possible. The > foundation of civilisation, the European Renaissance and all that. In the > absence of morality, overwhelmed by self-interest, degeneracy and misery > would be the end-point of that trajectory. The European Renaissance is now > in the past, a new future beckons. A new Dark Age, perhaps? [I allude here > to Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe”] > > > > So where has the anthropocentric, "man made in God's image" indulgence > brought us? Yes, it gave us the European Renaissance that preceded the > industrial and technological revolutions. But it never tempered its human > exceptionalism, the notion that only human logic and reason are real, > everything else a mere simile. And in this our indulgent anthropocentrism > might have now brought us to the edge of extinction, that's where. The > God/Not-God tension of the Occident is unlike the synthesis that emerged in > the East. Our Creationism flips to Darwinism morphs into Neo-Darwinism > morphs into physicalism/materialism, the notion that everything can be > explained in terms of matter and math. > > > > Who here hasn't heard of "The Great Replacement"? A strategic agenda or a > stupid experiment? Regardless, the established physicalist narrative cannot > comprehend that mixing very different cultures, like mixing oil and water, > can only ever result in catastrophe. The European cultures that had taken > millennia to evolve from the hunter-gatherers now stand at a precipice. The > chaos that has arrived at our doorstep we owe to the human exceptionalism > that renders human ways of knowing as exceptional, not required to answer > to a higher authority, other than the god made in Man's image. > > > > The god that I have in mind is Hubble Deep-field, trillions-galactic big. > He won’t know my name. Insofar as I might occasionally conjecture, he is > very different to the Abrahamic god made in Man's image that has set the > stage for a God/Not-God duality, an irreconcilable religion/materialist > schism. I'm sure He won't be offended were I to leave Him out of our > conversations. He's bigger than that. > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Gary Richmond > *Sent:* 18 August, 2025 8:18 AM > *To:* Peirce List <[email protected]>; Stephen Jarosek < > [email protected]>; Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Planck and Peirce on mind as primary, matter > secondary > > > > Stephen, Jon, List, > > > > SJ: Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > > I too am more and more inclined to "leave the god-question" open, although > I still consider myself something of a 'Cosmic Christian' in Matthew Fox's > sense of Christ as Logos and Pantokrator (Fox follows de Chardin and > Meister Eckhart, for example, in seeing Christ as a cosmic reality, as an > energy pattern, a presence pervading the universe) However, this is for me > likely an interim measure as I move further from traditional theism to I > know not what (none of the Eastern religions either). So, in a word: the > spirit of the "Religions of the Book" and those of the East are, in my > view, quasi-necessary; the language, symbols, doctrines and dogmas, > however, are mainly insufficient for the needs of our era. > > > > On the other hand, I didn't comment in the Planck/Peirce discussion that > both thinkers were wholly opposed to atheism and made many statements to > that effect. And I too am opposed to materialism, nothing-but-ism, social > Darwinism, irreverence (for people, animals, the earth), etc. As did First > Nations people of the Americas, I see all of nature as sacred. And *Tat > Tvam Asi*. > > > > My own thinking to date is that *some* Eastern thought posits Mind in a > way which not only leaves 'the god-question open' but which offers such > stimulating ideas as expressed in a Tibetan Buddhist tantra I read decades > ago which opens: *Samaya: Gya, Gya, Gya*, translated, *Universal Mind: > Vast, Vast, Vast*. And I am inspired by those metaphysical ideas which > suggest that we are of the very nature of that Vast Intelligence. For > example, Vedanta, *Tat Tvam Asi *(translated*, You* *Are That:* 'Tat' = > 'That', 'Tvam = 'You', 'Asi' = 'Are') identifies the person with the > essence of *Tat*. So I welcome a discussion of how some Eastern thought > can help us find a way to see Vast Intelligence at the core of the cosmos > without making *That * 'an anthropomorphic God' as Peirce and billions of > Jews, Muslims, and Christians do. I have great respect for those who hold > such beliefs as they all have at least the potential value of finding life > -- and not only human life, but all life -- valuable, sacred. > > > > Jon: Despite viewing consciousness as "limited to embodied and living > beings," Peirce considered the "anthropocentric bias" of Western philosophy > to be a feature, not a bug. . . Applying this directly to "the > god-question," he preferred "the anthropomorphic conception" of "an > old-fashioned God" as "more likely to be about the truth" than "a modern > patent Absolute". > > > > Gary: I would agree that for many an abstract 'Absolute' resonates very > little with the sense of the profound mystery of our being in this vast > cosmos (just spend a little time with the images take by the Webb telescope > to get a sense of what I mean by 'vast cosmos'), that for some of us our > 'intellect' and 'soul' or 'spirit' senses a connection to something > profoundly Real/Vital which the extant religions no longer adequately > address. The 'old-fashioned God' of the "Religions of the Book " has > apparently worked well enough for multitudes and for centuries, and still > has a powerful grip on many today. But there seems to be an increasing > desire among some for a faith which, if not exactly 'scientific', is at > least not at odds with science (again, neither Peirce nor Planck thought it > need be). Still, should it ever evolve, that now quite inconceivable > religion will need symbols more powerful than those of the existing major > religions which, however, and in my personal experience as a Christian, are > very powerful indeed in pointing the way to the sacred. > > > > Perhaps there's a truth in what Jon quoted Peirce as saying ". . .that > each of us believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less > crudely." > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Stephen, List: > > > > SJ: Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > > Despite viewing consciousness as "limited to embodied and living beings," > Peirce considered the "anthropocentric bias" of Western philosophy to be a > feature, not a bug, because "every scientific explanation is a hypothesis > that there is something in nature to which the human reason is analogous" > (CP 1.316, 1903). "To say, therefore, that a conception is one natural to > man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that it is > anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it in the > eyes of an Exact Logician" (CP 5.47, EP 2:152, 1903). Applying this > directly to "the god-question," he preferred "the anthropomorphic > conception" of "an old-fashioned God" as "more likely to be about the > truth" than "a modern patent Absolute" (CP 5.47n, EP 2:152; see also CP > 8.168, 1902). > > > > Of course, Peirce famously professed his own belief that God is "Really > creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908), > and he even asserted, "It may, therefore, truly be said that each of us > believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less crudely" > (SWS 283, 1909). However, he also insisted that "'God' is a vernacular word > and, like all such words, but more than almost any, is *vague*," going on > to suggest that the reason why many people erroneously deny that they > believe in the reality of God is because "they precide (or render precise) > the conception, and, in doing so, inevitably change it; and such precise > conception is easily shown not to be warranted, even if it cannot be quite > refuted" (CP 6.494-6, c. 1906). After all, he adds a few paragraphs later, > "it is impossible to say that any human attribute is *literally *applicable" > to God (CP 6.502); so, accordingly, "we must not predicate any Attribute of > God otherwise than vaguely and figuratively" (SWS 283). > > > > My forthcoming paper in *Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society*, > "Peirce's Cosmological Argumentation: God as *Ens necessarium*," explores > Peirce's answer to "the god-question" in greater detail. As usual, I will > post a link and the abstract when it is published, presumably in the next > issue. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:11 AM "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gary, List > > Gary R: “While Planck was cautious about explicitly theological language > (although he was a practicing Lutheran), my sense is that he tended towards > a view in which the universe’s ultimate reality is mind-like, far more > general than human consciousness, perhaps more like a universal cosmic > field in which human minds participate.” > > > > Resonates with aspects of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the quantum void. > Peirce’s and Planck’s interpretations are exceptional. Peirce, for example, > appreciates that “consciousness seems limited to embodied and living > beings”, and this resonates nicely with my own thinking. However, my > exchanges with Grok focus more on Eastern philosophies, rather than > Western. Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > > In my latest research (current paper under review with a journal), I > factor in the parallels between the quantum void and Sunyata (the creative > void of Buddhism/Hinduism), within a Peircean-semiotic context. My > extensive convo with Grok covers the “creative void” in greater detail, > around the notion that the “tensions” in the void (its potentialities) are > essentially semiotic. If anyone is interested, DM me and I can send you a > Word transcript of my convo with Grok… or I can post it to the forum, if > there’s a way of doing this. > > > > If anyone is interested in my current paper that is under review, here’s a > link to a preprint on Academia.edu: > > https://www.academia.edu/129898049/UPDATE_Association_as_Downward_Causation > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE > FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your > default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; > and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or > "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go > to [email protected] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L > <[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l> . But, if your subscribed email > account is not your default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE > PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
