Jason Jorjani

#1
This guy popped up on my suggested YouTube feed in a Thinking Allowed episode. Interesting interviewee on Psi, mythology, alt-right identitarianism, Persian / Aryan / Indo-European ancient history, etc...

On Red Ice Radio:
This first video has the most Psi related content I think:


Thinking Allowed:

 
Last edited:
#2
I put something on the forum some time ago praising Jorjani. I have watched a couple of his interviews on Thinking Allowed and his intellect and knowledge stands out, even to a dummy. Jeffrey Mishlove respects him a lot I think, which says something.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#4
I will say Jorjani's critics attacking him from the position of supporting materialist skepticism are fools, and the idea that his PhD be rescinded is just ridiculous. If one guy is telling you that you have power over your fate and the fate of your society and the other tells you that there is no free will and no objective values but still offers moral pronouncements....well it doesn't require a genius to see which way the world will go.

Rescinding his PhD for promoting ideas that are harmful to the social fabric would require Dennet, the Churchlands, and all their ilk to turn in their degrees. The materialist/mechanistic New Atheism is a grand failure, a dead cult. No one - not "liberals" nor "conservatives" cares about it at the ground level of seeking political power. However due to its own fundamentalism New Atheism became a cancer that I think led to the Alt-Left just as "skeptics" turned to the Alt-Right ->

When you remove religious sentiment from a society you remove the idea of moving forward by digesting past/present injustices. Without the notion of redemption, and of calling to mind one's own failures before judging others, there's no good transition rule. Without the notion of a common human soul you have the silliness of racial pride and racial animosity, as if one can take pride or take blame in the actions of others simply by sharing pigmentation (or genitals, sexuality, etc).

Of course one of the great failures of religious literalism is choosing Orthodoxy over Mysticism. Guilt over the biological reality of sexuality seems to me worse than the issues arising from sexual intimacy lowered to cheap commodity, and the notion of salvation/damnation resting on the correct "Belief Lottery" ticket has led to many of the problems we face in the modern era. In this I'd say the targets of New Atheism are also failures though not in the pile of dead cults, and thus in some position to move forward and do something about the problems at hand.
 
#5
Is this the guy who thinks Yaweh was an alien being?

That thinks Hitler had some spiritual greatness?
It's hard to tell with him at where he draws the line between myth and the literal but yeah he gets pretty out there. I would suggest you go through the 5 or six podcast which are only about 25 minutes each. The guy is quite a scholar and really interesting to listen to.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#6
It's hard to tell with him at where he draws the line between myth and the literal but yeah he gets pretty out there. I would suggest you go through the 5 or six podcast which are only about 25 minutes each. The guy is quite a scholar and really interesting to listen to.
I read an essay of his where he goes at length to note Buddha was white & blue eyes (why should this matter), and he then praises the "color coded" caste system.

Having opposed the injustice of the caste system for as long as I can remember....I feel like I've gotten as much as I can take. :)
 
#8
Is this the guy who thinks Yaweh was an alien being?

That thinks Hitler had some spiritual greatness?
I will reserve judgment until I hear him talk about these things in context ;-)

I haven't listened to that much of him so far.

The first video of him interested me as it was about Persian culture and hope of a Persian renaissance... since there's some Persian in the family, I'm interested in the heritage and the possibility that Iran could become a more open country in the future allowing us to visit.

Then I came across one video of him very emphatically declaring the reality of Psi and talking about myths and archetypes and I was very impressed by his knowledge of these subjects.

Regarding race and identitarianism in general: I think that like all things there are positives and negatives. In the modern multicultural experiment which is partly a reaction to obscene examples of racial hate and race-based slavery in the recent past, we've been taught to think that race is completely irrelevant, but that's obviously not the case with any other animal like dogs for example who can have various traits bred into them. Sheldrake's studies and theories about morphogenesis seem to imply concentric circles of group familiarity correlated with the Psi connection between the individual and the layers of the group that surround him (family being closest and race being a kind of extended family). The world's groups have been atomized into individuals. Taking away an individual's cultural and racial identity excises the individual from a larger story reducing their perception of life meaning and connectedness which in turn results in loneliness and isolation and the adoption of the dominant culture supplied by the large corporations which in turn makes them easier to control and exploit.

Groups with unique identities are not bad and they make the world a more interesting place. The negative comes when racial pride becomes an excuse for hatred of and violence towards another race or group. Excessive racial pride (or any kind of pride) that takes things too seriously is just silly. Xenophobia is silly.. but if someone wants to build up their group identity rather than blend into a world identity, I don't see anything morally wrong with that.... though it is dangerous... because cohesive groups of people are dangerous.

If someone thinks Hitler was a great guy BECAUSE he murdered 6 million innocent Jews. That is obviously inexcusably evil. However, if someone has been convinced of an alternative revisionist history where Hitler did not have a plan to exterminate the Jews or order such a thing, and there were no gas chambers and where he didn't have an evil plan to conquer and enslave the world but was pushed into war, then I can place that revisionist history on the side of my plate and continue listening to the person. I've heard enough to be sure I don't really know what the real truth about the WWII era really was, and I've also heard enough to be convinced that everything I was told about that era had a lot of propaganda blended into it.

Regarding the caste system, I haven't heard what Jorjani said about it, so I can't comment.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#9
I will reserve judgment until I hear him talk about these things in context ;-)

Regarding race and identitarianism in general: I think that like all things there are positives and negatives. In the modern multicultural experiment which is partly a reaction to obscene examples of racial hate and race-based slavery in the recent past, we've been taught to think that race is completely irrelevant, but that's obviously not the case with any other animal like dogs for example who can have various traits bred into them. Sheldrake's studies and theories about morphogenesis seem to imply concentric circles of group familiarity correlated with the Psi connection between the individual and the layers of the group that surround him (family being closest and race being a kind of extended family). The world's groups have been atomized into individuals. Taking away an individual's cultural and racial identity excises the individual from a larger story reducing their perception of life meaning and connectedness which in turn results in loneliness and isolation and the adoption of the dominant culture supplied by the large corporations which in turn makes them easier to control and exploit.
This would suggest even less reason for pride? Why take pride in achievements that are part of a mechanistic conclusion - and as per Braude morphogenic fields are mechanistic if used in the way you mention - rather than a sign of the worth of the individual.

Not everyone wants to be part of their cultural identity, and I remain unconvinced that racial identity is a real thing. I take pride and have shame for what I've done in this world, and black/white/Muslim/Christian/whatever should do the same.

Cultural identity is fine, but that rests on persons adopting the the culture's values. I take no pride in Sri Aurobindo's apparently incredible synthesis of Eastern/Western spirituality and philosophy as I've barely read the man. However it makes sense for the various non-Indians strongly drawn to him to take pride to the extent that they have worked to understand and further the views/ideas.

Groups with unique identities are not bad and they make the world a more interesting place. The negative comes when racial pride becomes an excuse for hatred of and violence towards another race or group. Excessive racial pride (or any kind of pride) that takes things too seriously is just silly. Xenophobia is silly.. but if someone wants to build up their group identity rather than blend into a world identity, I don't see anything morally wrong with that.... though it is dangerous... because cohesive groups of people are dangerous.
Identity simply is, it doesn't need to be a cause for pride or shame? One can see value in a culture but, again, culture and race are far different. The varied expats who went to India to settle an& d now have children there have far greater cause to take pride (though I'm not sure that's the right word) in Indian culture than I do, whereas I have more cause to take pride in American culture than them seeing I've lived here, traveled through much of it conversing with its citizens, and tried with various charitable/volunteer causes to make the US a better place.

If someone thinks Hitler was a great guy BECAUSE he murdered 6 million innocent Jews. That is obviously inexcusably evil. However, if someone has been convinced of an alternative revisionist history where Hitler did not have a plan to exterminate the Jews or order such a thing, and there were no gas chambers and where he didn't have an evil plan to conquer and enslave the world but was pushed into war, then I can place that revisionist history on the side of my plate and continue listening to the person. I've heard enough to be sure I don't really know what the real truth about the WWII era really was, and I've also heard enough to be convinced that everything I was told about that era had a lot of propaganda blended into it.
Wait...you're saying the Holocaust didn't happen? Is there any part of this evidence that challenged your thinking that is accepted by general history academia? I mean something that can and has been cited in the way physics and math findings are cited by academics. I'm not interested in Youtube videos.

Or is academia in the grips of another conspiracy that also lacks evidence? Remember how easy it is to make a conspiracy theory as good as the PedoGate one @Alex thinks is real.

Regarding the caste system, I haven't heard what Jorjani said about it, so I can't comment.
Just look for his writing on alt-right.com.

Apparently he also shares an apartment with Richard Spencer (who would like to see me deported though I can almost guarantee I've done more for America than he has), though I wonder who actually pays the rent seeing last I read Spencer lives with his mother rent-free.
 
#10
Is this the guy who thinks Yaweh was an alien being?

That thinks Hitler had some spiritual greatness?
In fact, there is other notable figure who thought that Hitler had some spiritual greatness - Timothy Leary. Just look at his famous "Game of Life" book, page 254 (page 262 of the PDF document).

Not something I can sympathise with... I too tired of all Stalin-worshippers here in Russia, abd I'm not enthusiastic (to put it mildly) for their vision of "spiritual totalitarianism".

I prefer spiritual anarchism.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#11
In fact, there is other notable figure who thought that Hitler had some spiritual greatness - Timothy Leary. Just look at his famous "Game of Life" book, page 254 (page 262 of the PDF document).

Not something I can sympathise with... I too tired of all Stalin-worshippers here in Russia, abd I'm not enthusiastic (to put it mildly) for their vision of "spiritual totalitarianism".

I prefer spiritual anarchism.
Well Leary is persona-non-grata among psychdelic research scientists for a reason, he set them back decades with is silliness. :)
 
#12
This would suggest even less reason for pride? Why take pride in achievements that are part of a mechanistic conclusion - and as per Braude morphogenic fields are mechanistic if used in the way you mention - rather than a sign of the worth of the individual.
I don't know if "pride" is the best word due to its often negative connotations. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are as a person and all of the qualities that make you unique. One can take pride in one's better qualities while still humbly acknowledging room for growth in other areas. Likewise, one can do the same with one's family and one's extended family and one's race... looking back at the struggles one's ancestors have gone through that made them what they were and that resulted in you being what you are. Or one can enjoy the positive traditions and peculiarities of the like (while also humbly acknowledging room for improvement in areas).

Of course "Pride" in one's ancestral origins shouldn't be excessive and can be a crutch for weaker minded people... As they say... "every tub must stand on its own bottom."

Not everyone wants to be part of their cultural identity, ... I take pride and have shame for what I've done in this world, and black/white/Muslim/Christian/whatever should do the same.
Whether you like your heritage or not and want to be associated with it publicly is of course up to you... but you can't escape the fact that you have a unique heritage and it has played a significant role in shaping who you are now and there are others who have a heritage closer to yours and others who have a heritage much different.

and I remain unconvinced that racial identity is a real thing
I don't know what you mean by this? It seems obvious to me that there are groups of people with phenotypic similarities and different groups of people that evolved to adapt to their environment and settings. Of course... like all things grouped... the boundaries are fuzzy and where you draw the line is somewhat arbitrary.

Cultural identity is fine, but that rests on persons adopting the the culture's values.
Well my immediate culture is Texas redneck... there's some things I love and hate about it. I don't adopt the entire culture's values. I can see aspects of myself that are reflective of that culture and aspects of myself that are far different. There's enough of it in me that I sometimes choose to identify with it (usually in self-deprecating humor!), and there's times when I'm glad to see values in myself that are shared in others around me.

Identity simply is, it doesn't need to be a cause for pride or shame? One can see value in a culture but, again, culture and race are far different. The varied expats who went to India to settle an& d now have children there have far greater cause to take pride (though I'm not sure that's the right word) in Indian culture than I do, whereas I have more cause to take pride in American culture than them seeing I've lived here, traveled through much of it conversing with its citizens, and tried with various charitable/volunteer causes to make the US a better place.
Again... pride perhaps has too many negative connotations. We could think of it as choosing to love your own positive qualities or the positive qualities of those in your "concentric circles" of identity.

Wait...you're saying the Holocaust didn't happen? Is there any part of this evidence that challenged your thinking that is accepted by general history academia? I mean something that can and has been cited in the way physics and math findings are cited by academics. I'm not interested in Youtube videos.
My thoughts on this were covered in another thread which is now closed so I won't say anymore about it here other than that I've encountered information that has aroused my skepticism in the default position and I have not yet settled on any firm conclusions... it is a box marked for further curious research.

Apparently he also shares an apartment with Richard Spencer (who would like to see me deported though I can almost guarantee I've done more for America than he has), though I wonder who actually pays the rent seeing last I read Spencer lives with his mother rent-free.
lol... wow I had to look that up.... interesting.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#13
I don't know if "pride" is the best word due to its often negative connotations. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are as a person and all of the qualities that make you unique. One can take pride in one's better qualities while still humbly acknowledging room for growth in other areas. Likewise, one can do the same with one's family and one's extended family and one's race... looking back at the struggles one's ancestors have gone through that made them what they were and that resulted in you being what you are. Or one can enjoy the positive traditions and peculiarities of the like (while also humbly acknowledging room for improvement in areas).
I love myself as a person for the good things I've done, for the people I've helped or at the least brought some joy to. I feel pride for what America has accomplished and recognize my benefits enjoyed also come from injustices that I should do some things to make up for.

Does one also feel shame for the things done by one's race? This seems like the grand flaw in identity politics?

I feel closer to the philosophers, agnostics, D&D players, and mathematicians of the world than I do with people who share nothing with me but pigmentation. (The last might be genetic, as one Compsci PhD has suggested to me in discussion. Are we then a race of mathematicians?).

Religion, culture, those do have a hold on me but even there since I'm separated from both Hindus and India in terms of belief and geography it's not as strong as my American-ness.

Whether you like your heritage or not and want to be associated with it publicly is of course up to you... but you can't escape the fact that you have a unique heritage and it has played a significant role in shaping who you are now and there are others who have a heritage closer to yours and others who have a heritage much different.
What is the unique heritage? If I look back on what has shaped me it would be nerd-culture - fantasy/science fiction + Dungeon & Dragons, reading the mythologies of the world, and the wonder I felt upon the realization that by proving things mathematically you touch eternal Truth.

My guess is white expat's children in India are far more a part of India's cultural heritage than I could ever be.

Well my immediate culture is Texas redneck... there's some things I love and hate about it. I don't adopt the entire culture's values. I can see aspects of myself that are reflective of that culture and aspects of myself that are far different. There's enough of it in me that I sometimes choose to identify with it (usually in self-deprecating humor!), and there's times when I'm glad to see values in myself that are shared in others around me.
Sure, but that's not a racial culture? I lived in Texas myself for several years. I still enjoy Tex-mex and big food portions. :)
 
#14
Does one also feel shame for the things done by one's race? This seems like the grand flaw in identity politics?
As we've discussed much, boundaries are arbitrarily defined and are only useful if serving a purpose. Identity is a boundary, and how one chooses to define one's identity can serve a purpose or be a limitation. So identifying with a group is optional. And taking on the glories or sins of that group is optional. Sometimes it is good to expand one's identity to encompass all of humanity and take on the sins of humanity so as not to play the victim. Sometimes it is good to identify with the world so as not to harm the environment. Sometimes it is good to identify with your team in a game to experience the emotions of competition. ...and perhaps sometimes it is good to identify with one's race. Sometimes not. The size and scope of your assumed identity has implications for the size and scope of your story and your story provides meaning and motivation.

In some cases, small identities result in small stories generating small weak meanings. Large identities can be a force to be reckoned with. But there is a trade off: increasing the boundaries of your identity means lowering the threshold of similarity required for the identity. Identifying with your brother is a small boundary / high similarity case and identifying with the world is a large boundary / lower similarity case, and identifying with other groups or races is somewhere in between.

I feel closer to the philosophers, agnostics, D&D players, and mathematicians of the world than I do with people who share nothing with me but pigmentation. (The last might be genetic, as one Compsci PhD has suggested to me in discussion. Are we then a race of mathematicians?).
That's fine, but now the quote "nerds will rule the world" is racist. :)

All I'm saying is that one valid set of similarities upon which we have the choice of identifying is genetic ancestry or race. There are instincts, patterns of behavior, Psi influence, tradition, etc connected to ancestry, so it is a completely valid and useful similarity upon which to hang an identity.

As a reaction to our history of racism and oppression, it has become politically incorrect to identify with one's race, or worse: to compare races or discuss positive aspects of one's race, unless one can claim to be part of an oppressed group.

Sure, but that's not a racial culture? I lived in Texas myself for several years. I still enjoy Tex-mex and big food portions. :)
Delicioso! :)
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#15
As we've discussed much, boundaries are arbitrarily defined and are only useful if serving a purpose. Identity is a boundary, and how one chooses to define one's identity can serve a purpose or be a limitation. So identifying with a group is optional. And taking on the glories or sins of that group is optional. Sometimes it is good to expand one's identity to encompass all of humanity and take on the sins of humanity so as not to play the victim. Sometimes it is good to identify with the world so as not to harm the environment. Sometimes it is good to identify with your team in a game to experience the emotions of competition. ...and perhaps sometimes it is good to identify with one's race. Sometimes not. The size and scope of your assumed identity has implications for the size and scope of your story and your story provides meaning and motivation.
So you can take on glories but excuse sins? That seems like the expected convenience I see in identity politics?

One's story should be their own story, their own achievements. It seems to me much of modern identity politics is a way to excuse perceived failure - it's always someone else's fault a person isn't successful with their job, with romance/sex, etc.

That's how conspiracy theories are born, a desperation to demonize one's supposed enemies who are to blame for one's own supposed failures...well that and 90's level HTML coding into disorganized messes of links. :)

In some cases, small identities result in small stories generating small weak meanings. Large identities can be a force to be reckoned with. But there is a trade off: increasing the boundaries of your identity means lowering the threshold of similarity required for the identity. Identifying with your brother is a small boundary / high similarity case and identifying with the world is a large boundary / lower similarity case, and identifying with other groups or races is somewhere in between.
Well you can identify with anyone for anything. But taking pride in accomplishments that others have done is just silly IMO.

Who would take a person seriously if they wrote down accomplishments of others on their resume?

That's fine, but now the quote "nerds will rule the world" is racist. :)
Heh.

All I'm saying is that one valid set of similarities upon which we have the choice of identifying is genetic ancestry or race. There are instincts, patterns of behavior, Psi influence, tradition, etc connected to ancestry, so it is a completely valid and useful similarity upon which to hang an identity.
Yet there are people with similarities that cut across ancestry, and I'd question how much genetics ultimately plays a role in behavior as you go down that road no one deserves credit for anything as the accomplishment is in the cells or even the atoms.

And who knows how Psi works or what it means? If anything it seems mind being transcendent of brain would negate much of the genetic connections between mind & brain. Reincarnation, NDEs, etc also seem to indicate it doesn't ultimately matter much what physical characteristics one has in this life.

The further one accepts Psi the more one has to question the influence of researchers, especially in psychology. Psi actually undoes the credibility of a lot of psychology, if not invalidating the field - which might help explain the replication failures across the board.

As a reaction to our history of racism and oppression, it has become politically incorrect to identify with one's race, or worse: to compare races or discuss positive aspects of one's race, unless one can claim to be part of an oppressed group.
There are no positive aspects of a race, gender, sexuality - I respect only the qualities of the individual which is to an extent classic "liberal" & to some extent modern "conservative" but identity politics have ruined both "sides" so a pox on both their houses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#16
So you can take on glories but excuse sins? That seems like the expected convenience I see in identity politics?
Don't have much time but I have to correct this. That's not at all what I said. I said sometimes it is good to identify with a group for either purpose. I even said that sometimes it is good to expand your identity to encompass all of humanity and bear its sins. I said nothing about excusing sins when convenient.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#17
Don't have much time but I have to correct this. That's not at all what I said. I said sometimes it is good to identify with a group for either purpose. I even said that sometimes it is good to expand your identity to encompass all of humanity and bear its sins. I said nothing about excusing sins when convenient.
Ah apologies for misreading you.
 
#19
One's story should be their own story, their own achievements.
Why can't one also have a group story? Isn't part of the human experience being a part of something greater than yourself? I say this as a person with a strong independent / libertarian streak. I've never meshed well with groups, but I nevertheless can understand how being a part of a group is a potentially positive enriching experience.

It seems to me much of modern identity politics is a way to excuse perceived failure - it's always someone else's fault a person isn't successful with their job, with romance/sex, etc.
I totally agree with that. People can be manipulated through group identities and divide and conquer works.

That's how conspiracy theories are born, a desperation to demonize one's supposed enemies who are to blame for one's own supposed failures...well that and 90's level HTML coding into disorganized messes of links. :)
...sometimes...maybe, but I don't really see how that is pertinent to this discussion. I fully agree there is a downside to group identity.

Well you can identify with anyone for anything. But taking pride in accomplishments that others have done is just silly IMO.
Why? It's empathizing with those close to you in some way. If you're on a sports team and you happen to be sitting on the bench when one of your teammates scores a goal, you'll be happy and proud of your team. Maybe you didn't contribute anything directly, but you contributed in other ways: practice, encouragement, friendship, etc.

Yet there are people with similarities that cut across ancestry, and I'd question how much genetics ultimately plays a role in behavior as you go down that road no one deserves credit for anything as the accomplishment is in the cells or even the atoms.
Of course there are similarities that cut across ancestry. We have similarities that cut across species too!

Again, I refer to a more neutral example of dogs: there are instincts and behavioral patterns that can be bred into different breeds. There can still be a wide variety of temperament and environmental factors also play a huge role, but ancestry and ancestral memory plays a not insignificant role in our make-up.

And who knows how Psi works or what it means? If anything it seems mind being transcendent of brain would negate much of the genetic connections between mind & brain. Reincarnation, NDEs, etc also seem to indicate it doesn't ultimately matter much what physical characteristics one has in this life.
We don't have to know how it works. We just know that it is impacted by familiarity and emotion, and we know that instinctual knowledge can be built up and passed from generation to generation.

There are no positive aspects of a race, gender, sexuality - I respect only the qualities of the individual which is to an extent classic "liberal" & to some extent modern "conservative" but identity politics have ruined both "sides" so a pox on both their houses.
Haha, well most of the time that's how I view things too.
 
Last edited:
#20
I will reserve judgment until I hear him talk about these things in context ;-)
Hurmanetar, you might enjoy this Keith Woods interview of Dr. Jojani published yesterday.

It's better than others because Jorjani focuses more on the ontology and philosophy of Promethianism than in other interviews where he talks about the Military Industrial Complex.

Interesting bits:

He confirms that his Promethiaism is Gnostic and promotes the Enki / Lucifer / Prometheus / Technos archetype as beneficial, and the Enlil / Yahweh / Zeus / Logos archetype as malevolent.

He says the Singularity will happen within 30 years. I say it won't because Science can't even cure the common cold.

He says Science will become super-dangerous after they abandon materialism and begin the "Spectral Revolution" of incorporating spooky stuff like Hal Puthoff's research into societal management. I agree with this.

MP3 version for your phone: https://anchor.fm/s/3917e394/podcas...-9-3/34c7f98e-3411-39f9-638d-6e505a171c43.mp3

Keith's podcast RSS feed: https://anchor.fm/s/3917e394/podcast/rss

YouTube version:
 
Top