Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:26 | #

A qualified ‘aye’ from me.

I think that the idea is ridiculous but I don’t think James is ridiculous - just this one idea. I’m also not sure that it directly relates to his psychology or past treatment by his employers.

Posted by Hamish on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:50 | #

An unqualified and unreserved aye.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:46 | #

No.

Cyanide smacks of almonds, but I’m not biting.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:04 | #

Well then since it is tied, I will take the liberty to say what should be obvious to all:

This “resolution” is no more “binding” than the non-existent agreement into which all “voters” have entered—and that’s not even considering the, shall we say, “flexible” identities of those weighing in (thus far only the “Aye"s seem to have identities not linked to flesh and blood to which we can assign a location and history).

Sounds a lot like “democracy” doesn’t it?

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:00 | #

Nay.

If i understand it properly i think the idea illustrates a principle very well.

However the reality is we’re not equal and where violence is concerned the inequality is much greater than elsewhere i.e there’s about 2% of men who barring accidents of luck could *easily* kill any one of the other 98%.

So the psycho 1% would be constantly challenging one of the 98% to duel just for fun while the centurian 1% would be trying to stop them.

I’m not sure what the effect would be on the overall system but i assume it would be dramatic.

The system would need to take into account the psychos and the centurians.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:10 | #

I shudder to think how many men might have been stupid enough to try to vote “Aye” in this election, and are now somewhere dead in a state of nature.

It’s been a long night. May their dumb asses rest in peace.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:15 | #

This “resolution” is no more “binding” than the non-existent agreement into which all “voters” have entered—and that’s not even considering the, shall we say, “flexible” identities of those weighing in (thus far only the “Aye"s seem to have identities not linked to flesh and blood to which we can assign a location and history).

You got me! I think it is a bad idea because of my DNA. That is even more absurd than trying to tie your stupid idea to the fact that you can’t hold down a job. I just wasn’t that fucking inspired by Dune.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:15 | #

Daniel,

That is hardly a good measuring stick to mete out one’s prescriptions with.

Your sentiment has value, but the magnitude of your exertion seems disproportionate to the task. The same could be said about the tenacity of James’ advocacy. You guys are acting as if this policy of single combat is pending codification by the US government or something.

I see it simply as a thought tool, and a rather brilliant on at that. I wouldn’t classify it as cornerstone. Its metaphorically subatomic and invisible to the naked eye. Its a theory about a molecular arrangement within a societal cornerstone that allows us to understand ourselves on a deeper, perhaps unconscious level.

James works with the social equivalent of machine code, and gets so totally engrossed in it that he occasionally believes he is living in the “real world” of the end user, so he pops his head out of the back of the computer and makes statements that are outrageous from the perspective of someone struggling with application software. Death threats ensue, but despite my proclamations to the contrary, no one is being beaten to death around here as a result of James’ deep insights.

They are not “stupid ideas”, and I doubt their origins are confined to revenge fantasies. In my opinion, they are brilliant, but most productively viewed as principals rather than prescriptions.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:16 | #

Jimmy, you aren’t proposing that *I* might challenge to single combat, and kill, one of the’s Aye’s are you?  Your wording is a bit obscure.

Wandrin, I think you meant “Centurion”, but yes, I’ve heard the argument before and answered it enough before.  We won’t go there, here.

danielj, so you think my disqualifying character flaw is not so much that I am blinded by rage as that I am a lazy good-for-nothing who would benefit from a boss—preferably an Italian one?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:52 | #

Jimmy, you aren’t proposing that *I* might challenge to single combat, and kill, one of the’s Aye’s are you?  Your wording is a bit obscure.

Yes. Obscurity is one of my many quirks, especially when discussing murder plots on the internet. I think my primary fantasy was one wherein renneR and I had gone on some kind of Night of the Long Knives mission in defense of your evil genius.

In reality, of course, I have been stuck with the invalorous chore of rehabilitating Mussolini.

Its not fair!

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:48 | #

In the instance of the breakdown of state power, thus initiating a vacuum into which other forms of social organization would venture, gangsterism does seem the more probable consistent with kin selection than the advent of single deadly combat.  The former appears to cut less against the grain of evolved human nature, if indeed at all, than the latter.  In the state of nature there were tribes (gangs), not single-combatants.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:24 | #

I think there is the habit of making a veritable fetish out of Northern European individualism consistent with what Wintermute has pithily dubbed “Anglo-Saxonism”.  Sure, NEs are probably the most individualistic people in the world per their genetic baseline.  Yet, there is a continuum of potential expression of that individualism, and external factors, most notably the rule of law and the rise of industry/technology, which facilitate the more extreme expression of NE individualism.  It is the power of the state and material prosperity which attenuate the personal consequences of pursuing extreme individualism, and in fact reward extreme individualism, to the ever rising detriment of extended kinship networks.  As such, the preservation of state power is a sine qua non to the preservation of a level of individualism I suspect “Anglo-Saxonists” would wish to see.  What you will get with the “withering away of the state” is not single-combatants but gangsterism.  That leaves, assuming “Anglo-Saxonists” still wish to persist in their emphasis on individualism, the state.  Logically then, it would fall to the (ethnic) state, or at least the state would have an interest in, reining in maladaptive levels of individualism that would tend to the dissolution of said state.  (If liberal individualists wish to propagate their nonsense; if profiteering individualists wish to import cheap brown labor; if Christian do-gooders wish to resettle refugees and adopt brown children; if prurient individualists wish to miscegenate, just what are you prepared to do about it?)

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:29 | #

James, I know you are prolific. I don’t think you don’t have a job because you are lazy.  Wouldn’t begin to try to comment on your character flaws, especially in light of my own. I’m curious though if your understanding of human nature actually leaves room for such thing as “character” flaws. Is that the problem with Italians? Their character? I would have thunk you would describe it in more materialistic terminology.

The only thing I think about the idea is that it is retarded. It isn’t a commentary on your character. However, the nature of your response I find somewhat revealing. It betrays a hypersensitivity uncharacteristic of Nords. Perhaps, somewhere up the line, some stoic, blue eyed mother of yours bedded down with an impassioned, olive skinned Med?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:38 | #

Easy on yer pipes, Danny Boy.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:01 | #

Yet, there is a continuum of potential expression of that individualism, and external factors, most notably the rule of law

Ties in with this imo

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/11/greek-barbarian/

What allowed Greeks to combine effective organization with political freedom? Herodotus suggests it was a kind of “rule of law.” As a Greek advisor explains to Xerxes:

Though they are free, they are not free in all respects, for they are actually ruled by a lord and master: law [nomos] is their master, and it is the law that they inwardly fear—much more so than your men fear you. They do whatever it commands, which is always the same: it forbids them to flee from battle, and no matter how many men they are fighting, it orders them to remain in their rank and either prevail or perish. (7:104)

The individualism *requires* the rule of law leading to a mortal weakness to hostile groups seizing control of the production of that law.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:04 | #

This isn’t a referendum on Bowery’s character - which is I’m sure all things considered of a more salutary nature than many of the people I know.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:09 | #

CC:  I take it that since you are the origin of the resolution, your failure to address it directly—and instead change the subject to my proposed social organization (as opposed to my motives for so proposing)—is due to the fact that you would find commenting with a mere “Aye” superfluous.

Thanks anyway, but rest assured, you will have future opportunities to re-present your theory of Euroman’s paleolithic social organization and its relevance to current military theory.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:10 | #

CCs comment @ 8:24 is very good, in my opinion.

Danny Boy’s last lines to JB reminded me of that great scene in True Romance where Dennis Hopper tells Christopher Walken, (a Sicilian mobster), that he’s part “eggplant” because somewhere along the line, one of his great, great grandmothers had f*cked a n*gger.

I think those lines punctuated the end of Hopper’s role in that movie.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:23 | #

danielj asks: “The only thing I think about the idea is that it is retarded. It isn’t a commentary on your character. However, the nature of your response I find somewhat revealing. It betrays a hypersensitivity uncharacteristic of Nords. Perhaps, somewhere up the line, some stoic, blue eyed mother of yours bedded down with an impassioned, olive skinned Med?”

Thanks for your partial clarification, however inadequate.  I doubt that I was the only one to find your prior comment about my “ability to hold down a job” to be rather, shall we say, “ambiguous”.  I’m not sure why you see my question as “hypersensitive”.  I see it as allowing you wide latitude to acquit yourself but still await clarification of what you meant.

As to my ancestry:  My sister married a Sicilian and my line’s path to the future likely rests with that admixture.  She thinks we’re all “lactose intolerant” and since that gene is the likely origin of IndoEuropean expansion, I may not even qualify as a “northern European” in any essential sense.  So don’t go getting the idea that I think there is no place for hot blooded Sicilians.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:40 | #

...we’re all “lactose intolerant” and since that gene is the likely origin of IndoEuropean expansion, I may not even qualify as a “northern European” in any essential sense.  So don’t go getting the idea that I think there is no place for hot blooded Sicilians. JB

I tried to warn you, Daniel. Now he’s going to kill you!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 23:53 | #

to the ever rising detriment of extended kinship networks.

It’s the great conundrumthat in fact it proved the exact opposite. This evolved trait, a penchant for individualism, proved so damn fecund, not just for the Anglo-Saxon, but for all of Europe, at least until WWI. It’s biologically unprecedented. As Stoddard suggested, no one at the turn of the 16th century, would have predicted such a “prodigious increase of the white race”.

White race-increase—the basis of all else—was truly phenomenal. In the year 1500 the white race (then confined to Europe) could not have numbered more than 70,000,000. In 1800 the population of Europe was 150,000,000, while the whites living outside Europe numbered over 10,000,000. The white race had thus a trifle more than doubled its numbers in three centuries. But in the year 1900 the population of Europe was nearly 450,000,000, while the extra-European whites numbered fully 100,000,000. Thus the whites had increased threefold in the European homeland, while in the new areas of settlement outside Europe they had increased tenfold. The total number of whites at the end of the nineteenth century was thus nearly 550,000,000—a gain in numbers of almost 400,000,000, or over 400 per cent. This spelled an increase six times as great as that of the preceding three centuries.

White race-growth is most strikingly exemplified by the increase of its most expansive and successful branch—the Anglo-Saxons. In 1480, as already seen, the population of England proper was not much over 2,000,000. Of course this figure was abnormally low even for mediæval times, it being due to the terrible vital losses of the Wars of the Roses, then drawing to a close. A century later, under Elizabeth, the population of England had risen to 4,000,000. In 1900 the population of England was 31,000,000, and in 1910 it was 35,000,000, the population of the British Isles at the latter date being 45,500,000. But in the intervenng centuries British blood had migrated to the ends of the earth, so that the total number of Anglo-Saxons in the world to-day cannot be much less than 100,000,000. This figure includes Scotch and Scotch Irish strains (which are of course identical with English in the Anglo-Saxon sense), and adopts the current estimate that some 50,000,000 of people in the United States are predominantly of Anglo-Saxon origin. Thus, in four centuries, the Anglo-Saxons multiplied between forty and fifty fold.

The Rising Tide of Color against White World-Supremacy p.155

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:26 | #

Now tell me what Hot Blooded Sicilian wouldn’t gladly challenge an Anglo Saxon to single deadly combat over this Sicilian* hottie, were it not for legal restrictions?

*An acquaintance of mine who I have reason to believe was from a straight-line Sicilian family.  Who knows… maybe a Goth or two got in there 1500 years ago.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:51 | #

A Dirge for Danny:

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound
?That almost saved a wretch like he.
?Who once was sane but then was found
?Slain by the wrathful J.B.

Grace could have taught his heart to fear
?And by Grace, his fears been relieved
?How precious would that Grace have appeared?
If in me, Danielj had believed.

Through very deep shit
?Could he have come
?If the surly knave had not seen fit
?To call James Bowery a bum.

But since his stubborn mind did fail
?To heed the my sage advice
?He ended up beyond the pale
Of my earnest artifice.
?
And now he spends eternal days
?Deprived of the shining sun.
?Because instead of lavish praise
?He called James Bowery a bum.

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 03:17 | #

I’m beginning to understand - the faux Anglo Saxons of the past century have through psychosocial dynamics been heavily selective of the ‘retard’ gene.

Thus Bowery’s sly plan is meant as a means of culling the deadwood.

It’s a bit late, and very basic…but at least someone is rolling up his sleeves and ready to work.

Posted by Stephen Wordsworth on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 03:42 | #

I fully aprove of the right of two consenting adult to duel to the death with swords in a boxing ring, preferably televised.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 04:02 | #

Grimoire, whoever he is, votes a back-handed “Aye”, as does Stephen Wordsworth, whoever he is.

Counting Desmond Jones as a “No” we have:

Aye 5
No   4

The Aye’s are ahead by a nose.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 04:31 | #

The Aye’s are ahead by a nose.

If they form a gang, yer head’ll be in noose.

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 04:54 | #

I wouldn’t say I vote for it as much as I see it as a sad but logical step for Anglo Saxons (sic) considering the degree of delusion they labour under, a possibly inescapable burden,  or, as GW put’s it: have sociobiologically selected towards, the ‘terminal’.

If it wasn’t for the fact the idea was targeted towards the English….I would say, in your argot, it’s barking… or starkers, your preference.

Yet though I grew up fencing 4 nights a week from school days through to today ....by this I do not mean French tightpants fencing with cat scratchers , pluto masks, linen leotards and a mothers kisses -
. The idea is still ludicrous for anyone who cares for his people.

However, should Parliament pass this bill… I believe I would vacation in England.
.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 12:45 | #

It’s the great conundrumthat in fact it proved the exact opposite.

No more mysterious than something which enjoys a prodigious expansion by a certain mechanism then begins to collapse by dint of the conditions which that same mechanism produces.  The trend line goes up and then it goes down.  The task is to reverse that downward trend, the debate is about what means will be effective and what means should be used.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 16:15 | #

Whites expanded because of the Industrial Revolution, and something in our race/culture which encouraged heroic explorations and conquests, allowing Europeans to ‘tap’ into the resources of alien lands, furthering aiding their reproductive successes.

The failure of whites to use their global political mastery to secure their racial hegemony for all time (as they could have in fact) puts the lie to the excessively naturalistic (Darwinian) explanations for social and national outcomes favored in these parts. We had it all - and then gave it away, something nothing purely Darwinist can account for.

It was the public’s (racial) ethics which changed. We must change them back, even as we concurrently work to appeal to pragmatic fears to end the immigration invasion.

Incidentally, let’s keep things serious here. We have a world to win - back.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 16:44 | #

Thanks for your partial clarification, however inadequate.  I doubt that I was the only one to find your prior comment about my “ability to hold down a job” to be rather, shall we say, “ambiguous”.  I’m not sure why you see my question as “hypersensitive”.  I see it as allowing you wide latitude to acquit yourself but still await clarification of what you meant.

It was supposed to be ambiguous. It wouldn’t have got a rise out of you if it wasn’t.

You’re hypersensitive because I’m just busting your balls and you don’t get it. You’re on hair trigger.

First of all, politics is sublimated violence, politicians already stand in as representatives in “deadly combat” and most of society operates under the ‘umbrella of protection’ principle already; it doesn’t do any good. I also don’t see how rearranging society so that somebody who is particularly adept at felling trees,  or somebody who can hurl well placed rocks and stones (why limit ourselves to the forest anyway? Why not somebody who is particularly suited to weild a cactus as a bludgeon?) and thereby rule, is in any way less dysgenic than the current arrangement. I see it as a highly ineffective way to cultivate the martial virtues, virtues that I would be interested in seeing resurrected. I also don’t see how it fits in with your other ideas. Perhaps someday, you could sketch a broader picture about the society you wish to see and its operation.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 17:54 | #

The failure of whites to use their global political mastery to secure their racial hegemony for all time (as they could have in fact) puts the lie to the excessively naturalistic (Darwinian) explanations for social and national outcomes favored in these parts. We had it all - and then gave it away, something nothing purely Darwinist can account for.
>Leon

We did it because of the ascendancy of the do-gooder humanist morality and the destitution of Europe in the wake of two megacidal fraternal wars.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:27 | #

danielj, thanks for giving your Aye vote crystal clarity.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 19:59 | #

danielj, thanks for giving your Aye vote crystal clarity.

You’re welcome James.

And to be even more crystal, I was trying - with my first comment - to suggest that your proposal had absolutely nothing to do with your past personal history and that Captain was being slightly unfair to suggest so. That is, I was defending your character (to some extent) whilst disagreeing with the substance of your idea.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:33 | #

Leon, I hope you don’t think my comment about the single combat over the Sicilian girl wasn’t deadly serious.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:48 | #

Now tell me what Hot Blooded Sicilian wouldn’t gladly challenge an Anglo Saxon to single deadly combat over this Sicilian* hottie, were it not for legal restrictions?

If you are going to let things like legal restrictions separate you from the object of your desires, it may rightly be said that are maladapted to the current “state of nature” in which those strictures inhere.

She looks better suited to Marr’s Colony anyway.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:17 | #

We had it all - and then gave it away, something nothing purely Darwinist can account for.

The answer is obvious for all those who are willing to see.

Posted by tc on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 01:29 | #

The choice in the matter is not mine to make.

An aye for an eye it is.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 03:46 | #

Perfect abode for single combatant in state of nature.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:11 | #

We did it because of the ascendancy of the do-gooder humanist morality and the destitution of Europe in the wake of two megacidal fraternal wars.

I think this was the biggest cut in the skin of all.

Civilizational PTSD from the consequences of advancing in killing technology way ahead of our ability to control ourselves.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 06:54 | #

tc, who made the choice if not you?

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:55 | #

He would be a rash individual who messed with an Iowa farmer. I once saw an Iowan farmer’s son knock a bullying Singapore Triad leader spark out in an Orchard Road bar and the infinitely laid - back German -  Scotch - Irish hero insisted on waiting in the bar until the threatened Chinese reinforcements arrived. They never did. If you are reading this, Rick Betten, well done again.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:06 | #

Al, I wish I could claim such fisted prowess but the rules of formal single combat in the state of nature (here comes jimmy marr again with some deliberately obscure comment about ‘the state of nature’) allows much latitude—especially to inventive tool users with a strategic mindset.  Leave Madison Square Garden to those who think of it as Eden.

PS:  Jimmy, with all due respect please understand that when you mock “the state of nature” you mock what I think of as God—or to use the Jeffersonian phrase “Nature’s God”.  When you find that the global economy has collapsed around you, then you will know God and you will be challenged by Nature.  And while I’m at it I may as well explain to danielj that the neolithic phenotype of forest destruction is not really the state of nature for temperate climates.  It won’t take but a century after the collapse/die-off for forests to return to much of our native habitats—assuming civilization hasn’t fried the planet already.  For those who want to fight it out with the Mexicans, Bedouins and/or Aborigines, they are welcome to use appropriate natural areas for conflict resolution but it seems that metallurgy and textiles are with us to stay without divine intervention so I suspect the short blade, clothes and cordage will remain the individual’s primary extended phenotypes regardless of ecology.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:56 | #

I’m sorry, James. I’m not exactly sure what mockery you’re referring to, but it would be useless for me to deny, because my mocking inclines toward the Ubiquitous.

It’s tempting to say that mockery is my God, but that is not quite true. Mockery, is merely an instrument for insinuating a truth unapproachable by prosaic means.

By mocking “state of nature” one might elicit the question “what state exists outside of nature?”, at which point the questioner might be brought closer to the revelation that nature IS without opposite.

It is impossible to mock a true god. The attempt can only reveal Her. Nevertheless, I’m impressed with your earnest willingness to engage in single combat in Her defense. A higher calling no mortal can know.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:16 | #

Well, at least your solipsism isn’t sophomoric.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:45 | #

Jimmy plays an important role around here as resident court jester.

From the wiki:

This lack of any place in the hierarchy meant Kings could trust the counsel of the jesters, as they had no vested interest in any region, estate or church.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:59 | #

at least your solipsism isn’t sophomoric.

Aye. And at least your argument is alliterated. 

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:24 | #

Extremely perceptive link, Notus:

The ‘natural’ fool was touched by God.

Bow down before me, Leon Haller!

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:28 | #

NW:  The other day I was looking around google images for an appropriate icon to attach to Jimmy’s posts but I couldn’t decide on which jester’s hat to use.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:59 | #

James: The other day I was looking around google images for an appropriate icon to attach to Jimmy’s posts but I couldn’t decide on which jester’s hat to use.

Hehe.  Quite.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:29 | #

Recent exchanges have reminded me of the work of Robert Crumb, of whose work, Mr. Natural, I am only tangentially aware, and who I believe is or was probably an insane Jew. His brother certainly was.

In any case, I’m imagining myself playing Flakey Foont to James Bowery’s Mr. Natural.

Mr. Natural is Foont’s guru who continuously makes profound observations about Reality. For his part, Flakey obsequiously follows Mr. Natural around asking “What does it mean, Mr Natural?”

Ultimately, Mr. Natural gets frustrated and turns on the hapless Flakey snarling: It don’t mean shit, Flakey. Now quit following me around!

I think the Mr. Natural series was very long running, and still has a cult following, so we can assume that Flakey remains unshaken, even to this day, by occasional glimpses of the spasmodic twitching which naturally occurs in his hero’s clay feet.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:34 | #

Which brings to mind this cartoon strip by R. Crumb.

Posted by Hawks on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:46 | #

Are R. Crumb and A. Wyatt Mann the same person?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 02:32 | #

Are R. Crumb and A. Wyatt Mann the same person?

Fascinating question. I’ll give it some thought. Meanwhile, here’s a question for others:

Is GWorker Mel Gibson’s beaver?

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:05 | #

(sigh) There are so few really superior men in this world, including amongst racialists. The problem today is that there has been effected a separation between traditional superiority of character and judgment, and race loyalty, among whites. The ‘better sorts’ face a social and economics rewards structure skewed towards group disloyalty. Perhaps this can be called “the emancipation [from race and nation] of the [genetic] elites”. Somehow the survival of the West (beginning with the survival of the race who created it) must become again a matter in which white elites have a personal stake.

A movement of the befuddled and clownish will result in nothing more than the creation of an ideological ghetto, easily controlled.

I, like the (much superior to me) late Samuel Francis, am very serious about racial survival, and use sites like this one to grapple with exactly how that can be effectuated. We are a long way even from maintaining the unacceptable status quo, and within a few decades, our window of opportunity will have been slammed shut on our fingers, permanently.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:13 | #

Or, reality (again):

For Americans:

Thanks to 45 years of unnecessary, undesirable, and untrammeled Third World immigration, destroying America’s historic and very salutary white racial base, we are now a diverse (and thus increasingly dysfunctional) hellhole. Our future is bleak. Multiracial societies are not a blessing, but a curse, needing constant management to avoid or ameliorate natural tensions, not to mention, for whites, endless interracial wealth transfers and remediation for the benefit of economically underachieving non-whites. We are also an increasingly dysgenic society, as the genetically superior of all races have had the lowest fertility rates for the better part of a century now. The US has long exceeded its ecological carrying capacity (and yet the environmental movement is silent about immigration’s role in generating nearly all contemporary population growth, still more evidence that most environmentalists hate capitalism far more than they care about biospheric preservation). And our darker, dumber and more crowded populace is ever less traditionalist in its outlook and morality, and even whites are more brainwashed into accepting destructive ideological and moral nonsense than ever before.

In this political and cultural environment, when America is no longer a natural nation, but just a giant ‘diverse’ mob, the only hope for the American people rests with a renewal of the rule of impartial law, and the restoration of a full capitalist economy, to replace today’s politicized, “rent-seeking” economic regime. The GOP is mostly weak and stupid, but Obama and his Democrats are uniformly evil. Decent people need to educate themselves, and then rally together to demand a much tougher conservative government, one which focuses on cleaning up the US, “strengthening the [Middle American] core”, to use a gym metaphor, and not such peripheral (or at best long term) concerns as abortion, the gay agenda, foreign policy, Iranian nukes, etc ad infinitum. We must:

1) seal the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and end the legal immigration invasion and conquest of the US;
2) bring back a vigorous and widespread use of the death penalty, preferably in the form of public hanging;
3) restore our lost 2nd Amendment rights;
4) abolish all foreign aid;
5) abolish the Federal Reserve, and replace it with a 100% gold dollar;
6) radically deregulate and re-privatize the economy, to return to real capitalism, and hence growth;
7) substantially slash the Federal budget, especially in ‘entitlements’;
8) after 7), cut taxes, especially those on business and capital gains;
9) modernize our nuclear weapons systems;
10) abolish AT LEAST the Departments of Commerce, Labor, HUD, Transportation, Agriculture, Education;
11) abolish affirmative action, and the whole divisive, “diversity” mentality, recognizing that we require maximum economic productivity for a long time if we are to a) create necessary jobs, b) successfully compete with China, India, Brazil, etc, c) fully fund bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and d) close the deficit; and
12) finally, though this list is hardly exhaustive, we must begin dismantling the financially unsustainable US Empire overseas, which is both a physical as well as international financial entity, and does no good for ordinary Americans.

If we as a nation do not begin following this type of fusionist conservative/libertarian/nationalist agenda, then, mark my words, America as we have known it, indeed, even as a civilized, First World country, will be dead before 2050.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:22 | #

Wishful thinking.

For the “serious”, the primary question is not “what” but “how”.

Have you ever gotten a law passed at the Federal level, Leon?

Posted by Goethe on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:43 | #

Dueling is childish. If you are a person of any value whatsoever to your fellow man, then dueling is a disgusting waste of potential, and a societal attitude that borders on barbarian.

If two people have a disagreement serious enough to warrant such foolish behaviour, then they should be mediated by one who is wiser than both of them.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 03:53 | #

En Garde, knave!

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 05:09 | #

Lay on, Macduff, and damned be him who first cries ‘Hold! enough!

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 05:13 | #

Alas, poor Yorick.

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 05:14 | #

I knew him, Horatio – a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.”

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:51 | #

Goethe the “wise” will count as an “Aye”.

Posted by Goethe on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:50 | #

Goethe the “wise” will count as an “Aye”.

It is obviously an issue of responsibility. If you feel that you have no responsibility to help enrich others who are deserving, then you are not the kind of person that a properly developing society/culture would want.

Look at what happened to Galois.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:28 | #

I agree that dueling is about as stupid as shooting heroin, but some people are in so much pain they take the handy remedy rather than even trying to understand the evolutionary consequences of single combat in the state of nature.  Naturally, those “wise” men like yourself prefer to focus on the stupidity of dueling rather than reading what men like myself actually say because they would probably end up being discarded like the evolutionary dross they are.  Their resulting “critique” has all the depth of I. Bismuth screaming “NAZI SCUM! NAZI SCUM!! NAZI SCUM!!!”

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 01:24 | #

Their resulting “critique” has all the depth of I. Bismuth screaming “NAZI SCUM! NAZI SCUM!! NAZI SCUM!!!”

You’re right.  I much prefer, “MORAL DEBASEMENT!  MORAL DEBASEMENT!!  MORAL DEBASEMENT!!!”

Posted by Goethe on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:52 | #

I agree that dueling is about as stupid as shooting heroin, but some people are in so much pain they take the handy remedy rather than even trying to understand the evolutionary consequences of single combat in the state of nature.

Humans are, and have always been, social creatures. Any long-term effect of single combat is far outweighed by group actions, especially in the realms of war and commerce.

Naturally, those “wise” men like yourself prefer to focus on the stupidity of dueling rather than reading what men like myself actually say because they would probably end up being discarded like the evolutionary dross they are.

I’m not a man. I’ve made no statements as to how wise I may be.

Their resulting “critique” has all the depth of I. Bismuth screaming “NAZI SCUM! NAZI SCUM!! NAZI SCUM!!!”

It is more that viewing evolution in such a basal way is not the proper perspective to take in order to understand human evolution. The rules are much more complex for us.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:04 | #

In the current “vote” we see that the majority is in favor of your interpretation of the value of single deadly combat and possibly in favor of diagnosing my advocacy of it as the foundation for social organization as symptomatic of a character flaw.

Fortunately, 3 billion years of evolution clearly states that Nature’s God creates via the mutant individual crowding out the type.  Any attempt counter to this is doomed.

Posted by Hamish on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:54 | #

Fortunately, 3 billion years of evolution clearly states that Nature’s God creates via the mutant individual crowding out the type.

So you’re a mutant?

Well, even if you are that doesn’t need to mean you’re idea will win out in the end.

Many mutations lead nowhere.

Posted by Hamish on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:56 | #

Guy #1: Your idea is stupid and will never work!

Guy #2: They said the same thing about the Wright Brothers!

Guy #1: Yeah, and they also said it about a million people where their ideas actually didn’t work.

Posted by Hamish on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:00 | #

Could you clarify one point, James?

Do you just want to legalize dueling, or do you want to make it mandatory so that you’d go to jail for refusing a challenge?

The thing is that some challenges in the age of dueling were frivolous, if you ask me, and ought to have been turned down.

Sure, dueling over your hot Sicilian friend would make sense, but what if someone challenged you to a duel over who’s wife makes better cakes?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:11 | #

Hamish, it really is insulting to have you exhibit such militant ignorance of what I’ve repeatedly written.  The primary purpose served by such willful ignorance is propaganda.  It makes me wonder who sent you?  I know, you’re probably just another of the billions of useful idiots so you have no idea that you were sent at all let alone who sent you.

So, speaking as though you aren’t a cricket infected with a gordian worm, it would be a lot more fruitful for you to first read the link given in the original post, as well as my most recent comment above wherein I deny that I’m advocating dueling and in fact consider dueling dysgenic—although no more dysgenic than civilization itself.

Posted by Hamish on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:48 | #

What you are advocating sure seems like a form of duelling to me.

As long as I’m sovereign, haven’t been challenged in the last year, and the sovereign members of the community go along with the idea that me and the other guy should fight; I’d have littel choice but to fight a duel.

Sure, the duel would be in a state of nature, with the weapons most primitive.

But that’s still duelling, if you ask me.

Do you consider the specific form of duelling you advocated in those seven points of agreement dysgenic?

Posted by Karl LaForce on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:21 | #

No.  Nay.  Nyet.  Nao.  Nine.
I would not have worded the policy as James has; somewhat hyperbolic.  The institution of legal dueling, with clearly defined rules, would refill an important gap in society, preventing rampant asshole-ism.

Posted by Octavian on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:02 | #

@Bowery

Aren’t you big on technology and science?

Wouldn’t this individual combat arrangement impede some amount of civilization and specialization and thus hamper the development of technology and science? 

How would guys be able to sit around and work on science and technology while some number of other people specialize in basic work if every single guy has to be some kind of forest warrior?

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:44 | #

Joy of creation is the meaning of life.  Technology and science are valuable to the extent that they have a net positive effect on the joy of creation.  If they interfere with sex—sex in the 600 million year old sense, not in the social sciences or “psychology” sense—they must be destroyed.  If they interfere with man as the moral animal with territory upon which to express his morality, they must be destroyed. 

Civilization has clearly interfered with both to an unacceptable extent.  Civilization must be destroyed.

My nearly 40 years of history emphasizing the dispersal of life via technology has always been predicated on Earth as a “nature” preserve—Nature including Man the moral animal restricted not from socialization but from “delegating” sovereignty to groups.  Moreover, the mere dispersal of life is of questionable merit if it means merely extending the present mutilation of Man.  My emphasis on algae and artificial intelligence is basically about extending Earth’s organic foundation for all life in a way that does not require Man to specialize, any more than does the Earth’s natural environment.

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:37 | #

Sorry for all the questions but your comment is a bit cryptic and mystical.  Trying to make sense out of it.

The meaning of life is one of the great mysteries of life.  Is “joy of creation” your opinion about the meaning of life and what you think it should be?  Or are you asserting this as fact? 

What does “sex in the 600 million year old sense” mean?  You mean sex for reproduction?  As opposed to sex solely for pleasure like these days with condoms and all?  Even before condoms people had sex for pleasure and weren’t consciously thinking of reproducing when having sex.

And what does “man as the moral animal with territory upon which to express his morality” mean?  Is that moral relativism/subjectivism?

So civilization has interfered with sex and morality by inventing condoms and objective or universal morality, preventing sex in its traditional sense for reproduction and preventing moral relativism/subjectivism?  Is this what you’re saying?

If you disperse life via technology why does Earth have to be a nature preserve?  I mean it’d be nice and all to keep around and to visit as a park or something but why is it important if you’ve disperse life and set up new planets and worlds with life?

Have you focused on algae and AI because you think those will best approxiamate the Earth’s natural environment as far as its effect on man goes?  That is, it will make man generalized rather than specialized?  Though couldn’t man end up turning into an algae munching computer (if he merges with AI) or algae munching computer-dependent?  Sounds like a pretty specialized creature to me.

You have some kind of vision of Man that has to be preserved at all costs, right?  Civilization, science, technology, et cetera must be destroyed if this vision or model is in jeopardy.  What’s the basis for this vision?  Just subjective opinion?  But what about the tribe, tribalism, the nation, nationalism?  Aren’t they more important?

And are you against transhumanism, radical life extension, and stuff like that?

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:54 | #

It is self-evident that the meaning of life is the joy of creation. 

Sex subsumes what has been called “Being toward death”.  People catch a glimpse of this when they call the act of procreation “the little death”, but it is more than that.  It is the expression of the two creative impulses which comprise evolution—selective destruction (death) and selective preservation (birth)—as male and female.  Being a sexed individual means choosing love and choosing death. 

Which brings up morality.  The story of Christ’s sacrifice embodies these choices of love and death and is what gives moral power to Christianity.  Its appeal is far deeper than mere “heroism” because it embodies reverence for sex as sacrifice for joyous creation.  We can dispense with the trimmings of the New Testament once we understand that.  Think about the respect you have for another with whom you agree to disagree as you each go your separate ways in your own separate territories to each create your own worlds with your own mates—and if you cannot find separate territories and/or mates, then decide which of you shall live to express his morality in creation.  Since the sexual revolution, we have liberated female choice—once under the strictures of civilization.  But leaving decisions about combat up to a group merely denies the essence of the masculine gender—sublimating it into mass war.  This sublimation of Man’s potential in the presence of “civilization” destroys masculinity and twists it into the Hell of war.  Civilization sees “separatism” as the ultimate evil—an evil even greater than murder.  Rather than rejoicing in Man’s love of Man as we sacrifice our very lives in our creations, civilization castrates men.  This is one major sense in which civilization is destroying Man, morality and sex.  It is why civilization increasingly preaches “tolerance” even as it has zero tolerance for separatism hence evolution—the very process of creation.  If Satan is dedicated to the destruction of God’s creation then civilization is Satan’s most potent weapon.

As for algae and AI and eugenics or dysgenics, anyone can making plausible sounding arguments—especially when they are in a Satanically dysgenic civilization. 

As for the cost of preserving our species and its attempt to become true Man, there are costs that are too high but don’t go getting the idea that our species is the only potential for beings whose morality recognizes and gives conscious reverence to and joyous participation in the processes of evolution that gives him Being.

Transhumanism, radical life extension and all that stuff is like any technology potentially dangerous.  I have nothing against them per se, but I will say that some of the ideas are too much like extensions of “religions” that blither about eternal life as they cut your balls off.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:18 | #

Bowery, your glaring religiosity…

It is self-evident that the meaning of life is the joy of creation.

has lead you to…

Civilization must be destroyed.

nihilism.

White people will choose National Socialism before they choose the destruction of civilization.

In the current “vote” we see that the majority is in favor of your interpretation of the value of single deadly combat and possibly in favor of diagnosing my advocacy of it as the foundation for social organization as symptomatic of a character flaw.

If I were to take a page out of GW’s book of smears I would say your desire to see young White men cut each other’s throats is an expression of your latent homosexual sadism.  But since I think that tack is bollocks, I won’t.

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:09 | #

@James Bowery

So the Christ narrative of sacrifice resulting in eternal life for others has been/is appealing because it’s analogous to a fundamental truth that people have an intuitive grasp of?

Is your basic point about civilization that it’s hegemonic and tries to control everything like man, morality, and sex, preventing separation and thus variation which is necessary for evolution?  Is this true of every civilization? 

BTW how exactly would you define civilization?  It’s one of those vague terms that’s always used in a positive sense.  The way it’s used by people you get the sense that it’s simply a synonym for “good.”

What other species have the “potential for beings whose morality recognizes and gives conscious reverence to and joyous participation in the processes of evolution that gives him Being”?  Are you just saying that millions of years of evolution could produce conscious beings of some other species in the future?

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:19 | #

Any attempt counter to this is doomed.

Then logically, unavoidably our race is doomed.

Fortunately

Fortunately, that dire prognostication for our purposes here is more psychological than soundly analytical.

3 billion years of evolution clearly states that Nature’s God creates via the mutant individual crowding out the type.

In the grand sweep of things, sure.  One day our sun will burn out, too.  Yet, were we to reserve our altruism only for our own people, and ensure a replacement level birth rate for roughly all the segments of society which carry the traits we deem desirable, racial preservation within the context of civilization would be assured in perpetuity, for all intents and purposes.  I cannot imagine what you find unrealizable and undesirable about that goal.

in fact consider dueling dysgenic

Please mull over this scenario: Jim Giles challenges Jim Bowery to single deadly combat.  The former Jim cuts the latter Jim’s throat in the woods somewhere.  Would you consider that a dysgenic outcome?  Were that outcome universalized, would the mean IQ of our race tend to be raised or lowered?  Is the lowering of the mean IQ of a group “dysgenic” in your opinion?

My ‘vote’ as it were: Bowery is a good guy who came up with a bad idea and is sticking to it out of stubborn pride.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:31 | #

Are you just saying that millions of years of evolution could produce conscious beings of some other species in the future?

Niggers are conscious beings, some of whom are smart enough, or dumb enough as it were, to see Bowery’s phantasmagorical phenomenology masquerading as ontology as a good idea.  And boy howdy would they treasure the bit about enthroning hyper-aggressive sexualism as their defining characteristic.

Shouldn’t some of our esteemed English moralists step in at this point?

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:54 | #

@Captainchaos

Giles has a Master’s or MBA or something, and he worked for IBM in New York City in the past.  I don’t think he’s as dumb as you think.

What do you mean by “phantasmagorical phenomenology” and how it’s “masquerading as ontology?”

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:28 | #

Giles has a Master’s or MBA or something, and he worked for IBM in New York City in the past.  I don’t think he’s as dumb as you think.

Giles always struck me as someone smart acting dumb. Why, who knows.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:36 | #

Octavian, think about the Christ narrative as a way of domesticating northern Europeans by appealing to their pagan morality—their instinctive perception of what it is to be Man in relation to Creation—and then introducing a barrier in which a theocracy mediates that perception for and on behalf of the State.  Who knows, there might have been a guy who actually was crucified for simply doing to the Jewish theocrats what Luther did to Rome’s theocrats—standing up and saying that “Ye are gods” by heritage and that theocrats have no business mediating our participation with Creation let alone using that justification to hand over our participation to a bunch of hypocrites calling themselves our “leaders”.  What could be more subversive than participatory Creation to all forms of tyranny including “participatory democracy”.

My basic point about civilization is that when it usurps sovereignty, it usurps the very force of life and distorts it into something resembling a slime mold more than even a bee hive.  It modifies its “citizens” to conform to the needs of the superorganism and ultimately serves no higher purpose than to recreate the slime mold pattern with the primary difference being the vast resources and mutilation of Creation.

The closest thing I can think of to a “civilization” that didn’t do this was the early Greek period when something resembling a “scientific state” existed very similar to what I described in “Secession From Slavery To Free Scientific Society”.

I define civilization as population structure oriented toward cities.

If our species fails to complete the realization of its potential as Man then there will likely be terrible damage to the biosphere and it could be tens of millions of years before another species approaches the conscious recognition of, and participation in, the manifest direction of Creation.  Mere “consciousness” as we understand it is hardly up to the task.  There are many Man-like beings running around among our species but few of them represent anything close to the potential of a moral animal to consciously choose alignment with the manifest direction of Creation.  The closest many of us get to realizing our potential is thinking seriously about eugenics.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:55 | #

Octavian, I mean that Bowery confuses the way he sees shit with the way things actually are. 

Wanda, you mean to tell me you think Giles has an IQ above 120?  (Giles marketed shit for IBM, he didn’t invent it.)  You mean to say Giles killing Bowery (whom probably has an IQ above 160) would not be a dysgenic outcome for the White race?

We need to get Potential Freud back here for some hyper-verbose moralistic scolding of certain parties.  I’m afraid I just can’t muster it, cuz I’m neither hyper-verbose nor a moralist.

For the sake of the rest of Bowery’s oeuvre, this misbegotten bit needs amputation.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:12 | #

CC,

I’m not about high IQ. I’m about the optimal combination of brains and brawn. My gut feel - based on only half-getting Mr Bowery’s stuff - is yes it would be dysgenic on balance but not because Giles is dumb.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:21 | #

Wandrin:

You’ve got some fucking sense after all, English though you may be.

Bowery:

“religions” that blither about eternal life as they cut your balls off.

Or religions with ritualistic throat cuttings invented to compensate for a sense of having been emasculated by the Joos.

Wouldn’t it be more humane to merely “cut [some guy’s] balls off”, so to speak, as I just got doing with our favorite race-mixer Randy - that is in the virtual realm?

Posted by anon on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:28 | #

Jim Giles has an IQ of 98.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:46 | #

Jim Giles has an IQ of 98.

“I scored a 98 but I had to stick my head out the door to yell at my blueticks that were barking at my cows”

Yeah, right.

I’d guess being a Southerner in New York is like being working class at Cambridge. Some people change to fit in. Some people play up the stereotype.

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:06 | #

@James Bowery

Sovereignty is simply power, isn’t it?  Why would it be civilization usurping sovereignty, rather than sovereignty simply accruing to civilization due to its inherently more powerful nature? 

When you speak of “the realization of its potential as Man” and “the conscious recognition of, and participation in, the manifest direction of Creation” you sound like you have a particular teleology in mind with a specific goal.  Isn’t creation by definition about not having a “manifest direction,” a specific goal, etc., but about potentially being able to go in any direction the creator chooses?

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:09 | #

Giles does frequently get interrupted during his broadcasts by his blueticks when they bark at his cows.

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:20 | #

@James Bowery

Is your IQ really above 160?  That is genius level.  You do seem very intelligent and have very deep ideas.  I don’t understand them fully but I’m intrigued by them and I think I’m kind of getting what you’re saying.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:44 | #

GW snubbed Giles for an interview, I guess because he thinks Giles is a stupid cracker.  What, no regard for the “Celtic fringe” (non-Germanic portion) of Engerland’s diaspora?

Posted by Octavian on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:38 | #

@James Bowery

What do you mean by “pagan morality—their instinctive perception of what it is to be Man in relation to Creation?”  Do you mean polytheism, shamanism, animism, etc?  What exactly is being instinctively perceived here, and how does polytheism, shamanism, animism, etc capture this perception, at least better than other moralities?

Posted by Jimmy da Genius on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:53 | #

Bowery is not rocket science, guys. All it takes is a knife and some cord.

Sorry to disappoint you, Captain. JB has no interest in tying you up.

Posted by Natural Born Killer on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:39 | #

Eat your heart out, Hunter Wallace!

Posted by danielj on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:49 | #

This thread has jumped the shark.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:34 | #

James,

It is self-evident that the meaning of life is the joy of creation.

Yes.

The story of Christ’s sacrifice embodies these choices of love and death and is what gives moral power to Christianity.  Its appeal is far deeper than mere “heroism” because it embodies reverence for sex as sacrifice for joyous creation.

The king nailed to the oak is the truer expression in European terms.  Sadly, the cosmic element reduced somewhat with the kingly interest in living, and was overtaken as the tradition transmogrified into the sacrifice of the king’s eldest son, then of any son, and finally of a common criminal made king for a day and granted whatever wish came into his head, except the wish for life itself.  The fixing of the symbol in time captured not merely the creative process of life thundering on, and so overcoming time and death, but the making of being, where the gods dwelt.  Thus the king’s blood upon the land - where the people dwelt - earned the favour of the gods, and life-giving fruitfulness was assured.  Maybe.

I enjoyed your rumination on the castratory effect of civilisation.  However, the argument inevitably runs up against European Man’s nature, which is not all masculine individualism, but which, also, is conflicted with Nature and given to intellect for that reason.  Western Civ is the outcome, a supra-territorial guarantor of continuity - but a guarantor against Nature, not against warring neighbours, not against invasion and subjugation.  Civilisation casts down the gods and raises up reason.  The king’s sacrifice gives way, sacrifice itself gives way, and cornucopianism, the triumph of the godless, descends upon the by now thoroughly uncomprehending urban masses.

Who knows, there might have been a guy who actually was crucified for simply doing to the Jewish theocrats what Luther did to Rome’s theocrats—standing up and saying that “Ye are gods” by heritage

In all this, we have to find and cleave to that which is authentically of us.  We cannot resolve the conflict in us which has done away with the cosmic solely by declaring for it.  We are both father and son.  We have to live with that as truly as we are able.

My basic point about civilization is that when it usurps sovereignty, it usurps the very force of life and distorts it into something resembling a slime mold more than even a bee hive.  It modifies its “citizens” to conform to the needs of the superorganism and ultimately serves no higher purpose than to recreate the slime mold pattern with the primary difference being the vast resources and mutilation of Creation.

I do feel that sovereignty as a particular characteristic of the father, let us say, is begging a certain question.  Not all our weakness was missing from him, perhaps not much of it even.  Sovereignty should never be generalised in its application to men as a feature of idealisation.  Sovereignty has always meant will, and will has always meant consciousness, and consciousness is not now nor ever was general.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:26 | #

Octavian, “Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.” (Wikipedia got that much right in its first sentence.)  Organisms are sovereign but their organs (or organelles in the case of unicellular organisms) are not.  Eusocial species form colonies that are part way between, as are slime mold.  They certainly fit into the ecology but one would hardly call them the vanguard of evolution.

Simple “force” is something possessed in far greater measure by the aspects of Nature not normally considered “living”.  If one’s goal is to create the greatest living mass that has supreme independent authority over the largest area, one is really simply attempting to destroy life—sort of like “the blob”.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:29 | #

GW:

Sovereignty has always meant will, and will has always meant consciousness, and consciousness is not now nor ever was general.

Another way of saying, at least by implication, that the lemmings are incapable of self-rule.

Dasein:

Sorry, CC, I can’t resist correcting this.

Who - whom?  A quite appropriate question given the topic of the thread.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:53 | #

CC,

Another way of saying, at least by implication, that the lemmings are incapable of self-rule.

To be accurate, “suggestibility” is a way of saying that ... or, if not that exactly, certainly that the right values, attitudes and ideas (and not merely the right leaders) have to be in place.

James’s focus on territorial suzereignty skips straight past the psychology of suggestion.  He says, “My basic point about civilization is that when it usurps sovereignty, it usurps the very force of life and distorts it into something ...” but civilisation does not does this, in my humble opinion.  Rather, where nature afforded the weak a safe path to tread, civilisation raises up reason.  It is reason that distorts, and the eternal suggestibility of men does the rest.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:33 | #

Octavian:

When you speak of “the realization of its potential as Man” and “the conscious recognition of, and participation in, the manifest direction of Creation” you sound like you have a particular teleology in mind with a specific goal.  Isn’t creation by definition about not having a “manifest direction,” a specific goal, etc., but about potentially being able to go in any direction the creator chooses?

If Being may be thought of as a self-imposed discipline, then it should be obvious why creativity is not unconstrained.  Discipline constrains creativity.  If you wish to revisit something as essential as sex then you are attempting to regress to a less disciplined mode of being—one incompatible with your physical body.  It is akin to suicide in that respect.  Suicide may be called for sometimes but not so long as we in our human forms, adequately enjoy creation.  By adequately I mean that we are constrained in our enjoyment by the same discipline that gives rise to our Being.

As to my IQ:  Due to loss of working memory capacity, I’m probably now lower IQ than the mid 150s I recall scoring in my youth.

Having said that, high IQ is like any tool:  It can get you into more trouble than those bereft of it, if misapplied—as it always is when deprived of thought about eugenics—Man’s most obvious potential as a moral animal.

More later

Posted by LULZ on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:45 | #

Cuckold Wallace is bragging about dating a single mother and raising another man’s child.

Posted by Jimmy da Genius on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 04:22 | #

James,

I’ve been thinking…

Regardless of the genius of your proposal, given the logical ramifications of it’s eugenic impact on participants of average I.Q., who by definition, also represent the central tendency within the electorate isn’t it unreasonable to imagine it could ever be adopted by way of dumbocracy?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not calling you a “retard” just because you put this thing to a vote.

But it’s Friday night. I’ve had a few beers. And I’m just askin’?

Posted by LULZ on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:57 | #

Maybe this explains Cuckold Wallace’s new perspective. He “shuts up and blends in” and settles for raising another man’s child because “it’s the best he’ll ever get”. Then he logs online to vent his frustration by demanding that we settle for a couple of crumbs from the Republican party because “that’s all we could ever hope to achieve”.

Posted by LULZ on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:00 | #

This could also explain Cuckold Wallace’s new passion for Christianity. Maybe Cuckold’s girlfriend “discovered Jesus” in order to reel in a sucker after slutting it up with “deadbeats” (Wallace’s word) and winding up with a baby.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:42 | #

Some guy asks “...isn’t it unreasonable to imagine it could ever be adopted by way of dumbocracy?”

The vote was merely performance art designed to illustrate the idiocy of group rule and indirectly argue for my thesis.

Few got the joke, despite my first comment.

Not even a smart ass like you got it.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:13 | #

The vote was merely performance art designed to illustrate the idiocy of group rule and indirectly argue for my thesis.

Oh we got it. Especially since you couldn’t contain yourself and already let the cat outta the bag once.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:35 | #

Until now, I’ve always felt pretentious when using my legal name, but unless and until this smart ass, “D’Genius”, backs off and stops besmirching our common first name, I must request that my fellow commenters henceforth refer to me as James.

This should in no way be construed as an attempt on my part to lay claim to the nominal sovereignty of anyone else using this name.

Thank you,

James

Posted by LULZ on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:06 | #

Cuckold Wallace says:

Conservatives are light years ahead of White Nationalists in creating a Christian counterculture. Just look at Liberty University in Virginia.

Yes, just look at Liberty University. Wallace probably thinks that’s an “implicit white” video that does a good job of “moving the goalposts”.

Posted by Octavian on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:53 | #

@James Bowery

When you say that “Being” is a “self-imposed discipline,” do mean it’s imposed by the “creator” on his/her/its creation?  Do you mean that Being is mortal, limited by time, so the creation doesn’t last forever and therefore the creator is forced to constantly create?  Is this what you mean by “discipline” and how creativity is constrained?

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:21 | #

thumbs up Bowery.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:45 | #

Octavian: By “self-imposed discipline” I mean that the Creator created us and we exist as creators through the Creator’s self-discipline.  We and all living creatures are conscious by virtue of the Creator’s self-disciplined consciousness—a discipline that gives up omnipotence and omniscience for the enjoyment of prior levels of creation from a virtual infinitude of perspectives, each of which form the foundation for future creation, and if found “good”, then a further self-discipline. 

Think about the “progress” from religion to art/magic to science.  By the time a phenomenon has achieved a “scientific” status it is a discipline and as a discipline it becomes “unconscious” in a sense—it is “unbracketed” in phenomenological terms—as it forms the plateau (in computer jargon we talk of “platforms”) for new creation.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:47 | #

James,

Serious Man  is making noises about getting rid of me, and I would like to provide him with an opportunity.

I’m not finicky about states of nature, but by clicking on the “Not On My Watch” link at http://www.azcentral.com/news/immigration/immigration-index.html you can see my favored terrain.

This geographic area lies outside the state’s monopoly on violence and is capable of providing me with a steady diet of Serious Man’s co-religionists on which to subsist while I await his appearance.

Any assistance you can provide in getting Serious Man organized for this event, would be appreciated.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:53 | #

...and if found “good”, then a further self-discipline.

As in the transmigration of souls?

Think about the “progress” from religion to art/magic to science.  By the time a phenomenon has achieved a “scientific” status it is a discipline and as a discipline it becomes “unconscious” in a sense

As someone who’s always been partial to the more dualistic tendencies of Hellenistic Gnosticism, I consider empirical science to be the basest form of investigation.  I mean, is there any epistemological method more crude than that which confines itself to what we, as human beings, can measure?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:16 | #

As someone who’s always been partial to the more dualistic tendencies…

Please, Notus our policy of one duelist at a time.

Posted by Octavian on Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:26 | #

@James Bowery

The traditional Western Christian view is that the Creator is omnipotent and omniscient while at the same time giving humans consciousness, the purpose of which is to know, strive toward, please, etc. Him.

Are you saying that by giving humans and other living creatures consciousness, the Creator gives up His omnipotence and omniscience, and that this sharing or dispersal of consciousness is what is meant by “self-discipline”?  And is your conception of the Creator the “absolute” or “ultimate” or “pure” or “greatest” consciousness or something along those lines?

Is this a kind of pan-theistic, Eastern “all is one, one is all” philosophy?

And when you say that when something becomes a science it becomes a discipline and thus “unconscious”, do you mean it’s unconscious in the sense that science/discipline follows and is subject to and limited by rules, laws, formalities, etc.?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:48 | #

As someone who’s always been partial to the more dualistic tendencies of Hellenistic Gnosticism, I consider empirical science to be the basest form of investigation.

Of course, it explains so much. The Gnostic believes that human sexuality is an expression of consciousness. Authentic consciousness asserts that sexuality is not limited. Thus Socrates, a student of Plato. a Gnostic and a pederast believed that fucking young boys up the ass was the only way they could reach beyond the shadows in the cave and seek out the abstract ‘Form of the Good’. Dualistic tendencies indeed!

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:38 | #

Dualistic tendencies indeed!

No two ways about it, the breakdown of state power will usher in not single combat but gangs of extended kinship networks, or at least ethnic mafias.  But Nordics don’t do gangsterism?  Hmm, I guess the Hell’s Angels don’t count as a gang, then.

Thus Socrates, a student of Plato. a Gnostic and a pederast believed that fucking young boys up the ass was the only way they could reach beyond the shadows in the cave and seek out the abstract ‘Form of the Good’.

Not by philosophizing but by buggery - sounds like bullshit to me.

Posted by Goethe on Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:02 | #

Thus Socrates, a student of Plato

You confuse their relationship…study more, perhaps.

Also, it is not wise to attack the founders of Western Civilization in such a way. It uncovers your ignorance of a broader European historical perspective.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:58 | #

The Gnostic believes that human sexuality is an expression of consciousness.

Strange, last time I remember a few body parts being involved.  Has it been a while for you Desmond? 

Authentic consciousness asserts that sexuality is not limited.

To which I reply, “Huh?”.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 14 Dec 2010 03:37 | #

Octavian: “Is this a kind of pan-theistic, Eastern “all is one, one is all” philosophy?”

“I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”  Another way of saying it is “This thou art.”

The most crucial distinction between Eastern “blow out the candle” philosophies that seek oneness, and the “many points of view from one” philosophy is that one says “No” to creation and the other says “Yes”.

Of course you’ll experience life as suffering if it is being drained from you by superorganisms—by dragons, serpents, and generations of vipers.  In that respect, eastern philosophy is more compatible with “the way things are” hence the perpetuation of Hell on Earth.

Posted by tc on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:45 | #

As to Your inquiry: those two options You offer are not true choices. One one hand, You hand me the Status Quo, on the other, You untie one of my hands.

I’ll take my chances with one hand.

I’ve heard a pretty funny stand up today, here, in Hungary, about: How about, if back in the day, we would’ve tried ‘capitalism’ in one of our counties for the laughs - turned around for in a p.c. fashion - how about, if we tried the ol’ commie experiment in the same place for it’s touristic draw.

The option for how about the National Socialist experiment was not presented…

...though…

If such an opportunity presented itself, I’d prolly move there.

Listen James.

I am at a point in my thinking(or emotions), that I am fairly sure, that for a White, European population, ANY social or economic way of organization is acceptable and preferable - as long as it definitely and doctrinally excludes the jew.

That is the only ‘choice’ I care to make. In the rest, I will yield my will to the majority - or work with them, in a democratic tradition.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:07 | #

That is the only ‘choice’ I care to make. In the rest, I will yield my will to the majority - or work with them, in a democratic tradition.

TC,

I’m afraid your one choice may entail ruling out the possibility of a democratic tradition. “Freedom” as the White man has come to think of it is likely doublespeak for slavery.

Given any choice in matters, the average White man will always find a way to sell himself to a Jew. Sharia may be the only thing capable of stopping him.

Its very sad and racist of me to think this way, but I it could be true.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:16 | #

Going off topic, I checked to see if Frank Herbert was a Jew. Apparently he was not, but in the process I stumbled onto a list of Dune religions, which I found interesting:

1 Buddislam
1.1 Zenshiism
1.2 Zensufism
1.3 Zensunni
2 Judaism
3 Mahayana Christianity
4 Mahayana Lankavatara
5 Muadru
6 Navachristianity
7 Zen Hekiganshu
8 Third Islam