Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:50 | #

Okay, what you’re saying in crude layman’s terms (apologies if I mangle any of it) is approximately this:

The more advanced an animal, the more social it is in the sense of responding to its environment and shaping it. Some might argue from this that the most advanced animal would live in a totalitarian Hive mind like society, where everyone is controlled by everyone else and in turn controls everyone else. However, in such an arrangement, nobody would have any control of anything in practice, as having 0.0000000000000…1% ownership of something is as good as has having no ownership at all. Rather, advanced animals would create more structures which are a direct expression of their innate personality, much like a beaver building a dam. This would require a longer adolescence (=period of defining oneself), as there’s more defining to do.

Or am I just getting it entirely wrong?

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:56 | #

Yes, you are approximately right.  There are two ways this expresses in practice:

1) Males will engage in combat to advance their interests, as males do in nature already.

2) The long adolescence of the individual Superman is equivalent to what we might think of in current, near-eusocial, terms as the rise of a “civilization”.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:25 | #

James,

Aren’t you supposed to be honeymooning?  Or is it honeymooning that made you think of the uebermensch and “fully sexual animals”? 

All this whatif theorizing about the far distant future is kinda interesting but I’d still like to see more practical visions and solutions.  Ya know, stuff the average Europod can use to improve himself, his family, and his community while he’s waiting for the uebertheorists to figure out a grand plan.  It would be great to hear of coordination efforts between the brains (you guys) and the brawn (the brave but slightly psychopathic street-level fighters, skins, weekend nazis, etc.).  It would be great to be able to unite the thinkers and the doers in a common cause, say, freedom for White people to gather as White people.  No criticism to your post above, I’m just wishing and hoping out loud here to fellow travelers, that’s all.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:39 | #

Rusty, this post actually resulted from a post I just made about a very practical means of pressing the reset button on civilization.  You want me to post more extensively on the practical details of that?  Fine.  My problem is I want to put forth a positive vision before I destroy civilization as we know it.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:02 | #

I’m not following you.  What do you mean reset button and “destroy civilization as we know it?”  After I understand that, perhaps I’d like to see your to-do llist on it.

Not being one for grand schemes at reorganizing mankind, I’m still stuck on thinking about practical solutions.  For example, what would a successful White organization look like?  Christian, pagan, both?  Blue-collar, white-collar?  Structured like the army, the Masons, the VFW, the Boy Scouts?  Would it be more educational, more religious, political?  I don’t want to get busy with anything, as so many politically-minded people do.  That oftens leads down blind alleys.  But I do believe that there are certain universals that couldn’t help but strengthen us, no matter what direction we are headed.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:10 | #

Rusty, when you go get a law passed Congress and signed into law by the President—or gone out and grown some high-gain source of food like protein producing algae— as I have—then you can preach to me about “practical solutions”.

From my perspective as someone who had grown very skeptical of “the system” due to my direct and relatively successful experiences with it—I propose that from phenomena like the “Fair Housing Act” and, the Immigration Act of 1965 and similar phenomena that prevent us from exercising our freedom of association—living our hypotheses with minimum interference from and with others —it doesn’t appear to me that civilization as we know it is reformable.  Perhaps it is but the problem is the people in a position to reform it have no incentive.  Perhaps if we start to deprive them of their toy they will stop their nanny-state theocratic meddling with us.  If not, then down it goes.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:32 | #

“Nous sommes du soleil”, didn’t someone as daft as a brush sing in the early seventies?

James,

Here’s a mystery of the logos, if logos may be defined as consciousness, and consciousness defined in opposition to mechanicity, and mechanicity defined as our ordinary waking state.

Does the potentiality for a highly-focussed and enhanced self-consciousness, derived through attention, really exist?  If it does exist (ie, it is not merely a product of the imagination) what evolutionary purpose can it possibly serve, given that it must serve something?

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:01 | #

Preaching?  Criminy you Quakers are a sensitive, high and mighty bunch.  I’m simply wondering about things the average guy can do or design now, that’s all, while also admitting that I’m not sophisticated enough to be able to understand the relevance of many of the civilization reorg schemes and DNA talk I see on boards like this.  Relax, I’m on your side, dickhead.  No sit down and tell me about the reset button thingy.  Don’t make me come over there.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:15 | #

GW, discussion of “will” is where this is heading isn’t it?  I’m not sure I want to dive into those philosophical waters in the present instance but I’m “willing” to do so if necessary.

We create.  Evolution may be defined in terms of such collective creation so that is where “evolutionary purpose” originates.

I don’t think any healthy human can dispute the beauty of sexuality in its natural dual form, and the transcendence of man’s consciousness of such beauty.  It is the eusocial, metrosexual drone “citizen” that thinks in terms of “the body politic” in which individuality and sexuality dissolve in primordial ooze as somehow “transcendent”.  But in such consciousness we’ve lost touch with consciuosness in the very cells of our own bodies who are specialized clones united in a transcendent purpose of expressing their shared genotype.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:17 | #

Rusty, the question before us is this:

If you could press a button and all cities were to disappear, would you press it?  (Civilization is by definition the social organization of cities.)

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:19 | #

Do you mean cities as in large towns or all complex organized habitats?  What about the people and their beliefs?

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:30 | #

Cities are different from more complex organized habitats like natural ecosystems.  The phrase “king of the jungle” is a bad metaphor constructed by the mutilated mind of civilized men.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:39 | #

Yes, I agree that cities can be very dehumanizing.  I was wondering about what to do with the people though and the way that they think about things.  It seems likely to me that, were cities instantly made to disappear right now, people would have a mind to rebuild them, much the same as they were.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:26 | #

The question isn’t whether they’d try to rebuild them but whether there would be enough breathing room thereby created to allow freedom to reestablish itself with the hard lessons learned informing the progress to individualism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:55 | #

the progress to individualism.

James, really.  You don’t believe that, do you?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:01 | #

I guess we have differing opinions on what makes Europeans Europeans.  It is precisely this paradoxical requirement that we, as a group, defend our individualistic nature, that makes us unique and inherently vulnerable without individualism as an ideology/religion.

There is nothing inherent in individualism as in ideology/religion that precludes a belief in a strong population structure in its genetic components that need eugenic preservation and development.  The individualism that is toxic is the one foisted upon us by hypocrites to atomize us when we should be uniting to present a unified front against the hypocrites.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:46 | #

But the individualism that springs from our natures is alien to the notion of progress.  The individualism that presents itself as the teleological goal of liberal politics is, of course, a misreading of another kind of maturation - something of the spirit - and that’s why progress towards it always produces nothing or worse.

Either way, progress is a false concept.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 02:10 | #

Creation is not a false concept.  It is how wonders come to be.  The individualism that springs from our natures is a piece of the creativity giving rise to our beings.  Our individual natures are creative.  Progress defined any other way seems boring at the least if not utterly bereft of the joy of being.

Posted by Thus Spoke Zarathustra on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:04 | #

“Although I’m not a student of Nietzsche, many references to his Übermensch or Superman pervade white nationalist, particularly white supremacist, thought…”

I wonder how many of these “white nationalists” and “white supremacists” have actually read the totality of Nietzsche’s work, not only “Zarathustra” and “Genealogy of Morals”, but also: “Ecce Homo”, “Nietzsche Contra Wagner”, “Twilight of the Idols”, “Human, All-too-Human”, “The Antichrist”, and others, including his published letters?

Not many, I presume.  Otherwise, they’d be aware that Nietzsche, on balance, was extremely philosemitic, had a disdain for Germans and German culture (and attempted to postulate some Polish ancestry for himself), despised “Anti-Semites” (including his brother-in-law Forster), and even had a kind word to say about Islam in “The Antichrist.”  And, no, his “overman” was not a evolutionary, biological entity, but one of spirit, Diosynian, with Cesare Borgia being a particular Nietzsche favorite (as was Napoleon and Caeser).

Am I saying that Nietzsche was correct, and that we should be philosemitic and despise “Anti-Semites?”

No.  Nietzsche was a man of his time, the mid-late 19th century, the time of European preeminence and power; possibly, if was alive today, his views would have actually moved in the direction that “white supremacists” think they were.

But, alas, he wrote what he wrote, and a negative phrase about “stock exchange Jews” does not compensate for the constant pro-Jewish and anti-Semite-baiting nature of his writings.  Let’s be honest and stop the nonsense of Nietzsche being some sort of Darwinian proto-fascist and Germanic nationalist.  He was, in fact, completely the opposite.

Don’t believe it?  Then read ALL his works.

Not saying he was correct, but the “white supremacists” are not doing the man’s work justice by gross mis-interpretation.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:27 | #

Thanks for the informative post, ASZ.

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:29 | #

I dare say that most “white supremacists” (have you met one yet?) probably look to Nietzche for the concept of a new, heroic man transcending his past, in this case an new Euroman transcending his past of race blindness, rather than embracing his philosophy in toto.

By the way, I assume that eusocial means Hive mind, as the only other reference to it I can find is the phrase ‘eusocial insects’.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:40 | #

You need a decent spam filter.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:50 | #

“eusocial” by construction basically means “extremely social” but the social insects achieve this by sacrificing fully sexual reproduction to achieve something half way to cloning—haplodiploid reproduction.  I believe naked mole rats achieve a lesser degree of eusociality without haplodiploidy but their sexuality is extremely distorted.

Posted by Zarathustra on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:20 | #

“I dare say that most “white supremacists” (have you met one yet?)”

Yes, I have.

“...probably look to Nietzche for the concept of a new, heroic man transcending his past, in this case an new Euroman transcending his past of race blindness, rather than embracing his philosophy in toto.”

I don’t know.  Both the Italian Fascists and German National Socialists (as well as anti-German Americans, see Mencken’s preface to “AntiChrist”) really distorted Nietzsche’s work.  And, I know some “white supremacists” who have done the same - take a few anti-Jewish comments out of context, interpret the “overman” in biological terms, etc.  I believe my criticism is justified.  I wonder how many of these “supremacists” know that FN thought the Jews “saved” western civilization in the middle ages, and that he thought that the “European of the future” should include mixing with Jews.

To put it another way, whether or not FN would have supported an “Imperium Europa”, he would have strongly objected to Lowell’s “anti-Semitism” and his apparent conception of the “overman” as having biological implications.

By the tone of your comment, you may think that I am approving of FN’s views and attacking Lowell.  That is incorrect; Lowell’s views are in tune with the year 2007, Nietzsche’s in tune with 1887.

Of course, if wish to say that these folks appreciate Nietzsche’s spiritual and broad philosophical underpinning - maybe. But many of these people I think invoke Nietzsche for ideas that the philosopher himself would have rejected.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:22 | #

Rusty had said: I was wondering about what to do with the people though and the way that they think about things.

Here is something concrete:

Learn self-sufficiency.

How much land does it take to grow your own food and what are the minimal tools and how do you construct those tools?  I know guys around the PNW who claim to have built hand-powered machine tools from native iron ore and wood fuel.  These men may be closer to the heliocentric individual than the “cognitive elitists”.

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:39 | #

“THE PILL TO WOW HER.”

Well done, Soren.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:13 | #

What I mean, James, is, How do you think people’s ideas can be changed so that they do not just repeat the same mistakes as before?  I have brought this question up in the PLE and “White Homeland” discussions on a few other forums several times.  The question I posed is, Even if Whites did come together to build a White community, what will keep all of the participants from bringing along their bad habits (excessive TV watching, financing Jewish debauchery through purchases of porn and other self-destructive behavior, lack of resistance to minority pushiness, lack of political experience, etc. ) that brought about the problems of Whites in the first place?

Posted by Rusty Mason on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:17 | #

The anarchists have essentially the same problem.  Suppose that we could push a button and LewRockwell and crew, for example, got exactly what they wanted: no government.  What would happen?  Within .001 seconds, everyone would immediately set to rebuilding things exactly as they were before.  Their vision or conception of how the world is supposed to work hasn’t changed at all, only their circumstances.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:23 | #

‘The Pill to Wow Her’ seems an unlikely product of the mind of one of Cambridge’s most famous homosexuals.

Posted by Count Sudoku on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:24 | #

Rusty Mason

If there was a “White Homeland” there would be no minorities and even if there were, if enough Whites thought as we did we would just flip them the bird. What is important is that we get control of a country (even a small, probably even better that it is small) so we control immigration, the media, education etc). When we do this we can recruit like minded people from other White countries through immigration and make it less and less pleasant for minorities that exist there so eventually most of them leave. We can also use the media and education system to make more of the indigenous Whites think more like us.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:08 | #

Rusty, the problem boils down to the process of realizing freedom of association aka self-determination.  I’ve talked about this before in what might be called allodial assortative migration.  If you replace all other so-called “human rights” (we won’t talk about other life forms for the moment) with an allodial right to subsistence land that follows assortative migration, then you get the kind of process needed to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The problem is that “civilization” has created a monster that insists that anyone who believes they have a better idea than those that want to take control of their lives is a “supremacist” and therefore to be denied their human rights.

This means that either civilization must be destroyed or it must be threatened with destruction to the point that it inhibits its tyrannical hypocrisy.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:01 | #

Civilization must be destroyed?  Well, that’s happening now.  Or, by civilization, do you mean most of the people too?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:17 | #

Civilization is destroying itself, true, but in the process it is also destroying us.  Better we destroy it.

Destroying people is not necessary except those people who insist on supporting the monster rather than themselves.  Such people would include parasites on the rest of us.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:14 | #

James, what would you like to keep of what exists now?  What new things would you add?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:40 | #

See my most recent article Postcivil society: Empty the Cities.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:13 | #

It might be interesting to re-read this in light of the current rendition of Supe’s battle with the immoral forces of eusociality.

This is also interesting, imo, with one small change…

James,

Here’s a mystery of the logos, if logos may be defined as consciousness, and consciousness defined in opposition to mechanicity, and mechanicity defined as our ordinary waking state.

Does the potentiality for a highly-focussed and enhanced self-consciousness, derived through attention, really exist?  If it does exist (ie, it is not merely a product of the imagination) what evolutionary purpose can it possibly serve, given that it must serve something?

It need not serve an evolutionary purpose, like, for instance blood hair and blue eyes, if it was sexually selected.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:20 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 19, 2013, 04:13 PM | #

It need not serve an evolutionary purpose, like, for instance blood hair and blue eyes, if it was sexually selected.

That’s a really interesting comment. The comment included within, as well (which is Orthodox priest talk of logos, I gather).

Could that service be aesthetic signaling of organization (and over organization)? Which would be crucial to the concerns we have here.

In potential purpose of distinguishing from the eusocial dragon, I take it you are focusing on the aspect of non-uniformity, non-utilitarian variation, differences which signal a (mere) will to be different.

Whatever the case, I was under the impression that natural selection always has an arbitrary, stochastic part in its process, that is variation.

That is, not necessarily divine, or a participant of divine consciousness, but a fact which may be focused on in advancing the concept of distinguishing our peoples as necessary.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:01 | #

Desmond Jones referring to the most recent “Superman” cinematic reboot while linking to a prior post of mine regarding the prior “Superman” reboot, writes:

It might be interesting to re-read this in light of the current rendition of Supe’s battle with the immoral forces of eusociality.

Indeed, the script of this latest “Superman” reboot was remarkably, if not eerily close to the cinematic images I would have portrayed, from the opening scene featuring a heterosexual natural birth as life-affirming rebellion against the stagnating asexual cloning reproduction of specialized “members” of a eusociety on the verge of dying out—to the final scene where the product of that birth identifies with the Nation of Settlers (“I’m from a Kansas farm” paraphrasing him) when he destroys a US government surveillance drone and as an individual confronts the military authority that his job is not to spy on individuals like him but to convince the Federal government that they should not be doing so.  It now holds the record for the highest grossing June opening in cinema history.

Zack Snyder is an intriguing phenomenon.

Posted by Mike on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:56 | #

James,

You seem to watch a lot of movies despite being very critical of Hollywood.

Do you watch them primarily to get a sense of how Hollywood uses movies to manipulate people?

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:55 | #

300 seemed to me at the time to be a jaw-droppingly racist movie. I don’t think I could have made it any more racialist. Recall how many of the ‘bad guys’ were Negroid (ridiculously including Darius himself, who certainly was not a sexually ambiguous Negroid - what was Snyder getting at with that? Was it transcribed directly from the Frank Miller graphic book, which I never read?). I doubt that was very realistic; the disgusting but talented leftist Jew Oliver Stone’s Alexander was more ethnically accurate, I should think. The Persian empire would not have had African generals (slaves maybe). Was Snyder trying to be simultaneously overtly PC (“see how I used blacks for important characters!”), but covertly racialist (“but the actual good guys are all two-fisted Aryans”)? Interesting footnote in film history.

I see a lot of movies, too, though I’m usually disappointed, cinematically and of course politically (though at least movies today are less overtly liberal-preachy than I recall them being several decades ago; 42 was a big recent exception I forced myself to see). I prefer indie and European (and some Oriental) films (HATE Indian movies). American movies are usually only good for the big budgets (esp special effects), often times amazing cinematography, and ‘popcorn’ humor and energy. But for sheer mindless entertainment, Hollywood productions - Jewish or not - can’t be beat.

Is Man of Steel worth seeing? Every superhero movie I’ve seen over the past 10 years, except the first Iron Man, but including the recent Batman (despite’s its being sort of conservative), I’ve found disappointing. My gf has dragged me to a bunch over the few years we’ve been together (plus she’s rented several), and I never like them. Loud, jejune, uninvolving.

OTOH, definitely looking forward to WWZ!

Posted by Ernest on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:23 | #

300 seemed to me at the time to be a jaw-droppingly racist movie. I don’t think I could have made it any more racialist. Recall how many of the ‘bad guys’ were Negroid (ridiculously including Darius himself, who certainly was not a sexually ambiguous Negroid - what was Snyder getting at with that? Was it transcribed directly from the Frank Miller graphic book, which I never read?). I doubt that was very realistic; the disgusting but talented leftist Jew Oliver Stone’s Alexander was more ethnically accurate, I should think. The Persian empire would not have had African generals (slaves maybe). Was Snyder trying to be simultaneously overtly PC (“see how I used blacks for important characters!”), but covertly racialist (“but the actual good guys are all two-fisted Aryans”)? Interesting footnote in film history.

Apparently the irony was totally lost on viewers of 300 that thought the Spartans represented the US while the Persians represented Iran.

The Persian state was an overreaching, corrupt, multiethnic, godless, and cynical empire dependent on mercenaries and slave labor, going up against the humble piety and quiet determination of the Greek states.

The analogy made more sense with the roles reversed.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 04:42 | #

300 seemed to me at the time to be a jaw-droppingly racist movie. I don’t think I could have made it any more racialist. Recall how many of the ‘bad guys’ were Negroid (ridiculously including Darius himself, who certainly was not a sexually ambiguous Negroid - what was Snyder getting at with that? Was it transcribed directly from the Frank Miller graphic book, which I never read?).

You mean Xerxes.  Yes, that portrayal was from Miller, but Miller also nigged the Greeks up quite a bit too.

Every superhero movie I’ve seen over the past 10 years, except the first Iron Man, but including the recent Batman (despite’s its being sort of conservative), I’ve found disappointing. My gf has dragged me to a bunch over the few years we’ve been together (plus she’s rented several), and I never like them. Loud, jejune, uninvolving.

There are some I’ve enjoyed for longer stretches than others—some suck from start to finish—but on balance I’ve always come away disappointed.  Besides the contemporary trope of strong-willed, decisive, butt-kicking female character, always on hand with a clever solution—this is even more a mainstay than the black hi-tech arms supplier character that first began to make me roll my eyes at TV/movie negroes—I can’t stand the fight sequences between main characters that drag on far too long and which never resolve anything because no one ever gets hurt.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 06:08 | #

Yes, Xerxes, of course. I stand corrected. I was thinking of the Colin Farrell movie when I was writing.

Miller ‘nigged’ the Greeks? I thought he was supposed to be sort of a rightwinger. I don’t like comic books, er, “graphic novels”. I did read Watchmen years ago, and even that portentous piece I found dull, despite being advertised as the greatest graphic novel of all. If that was even close to “the greatest”, well, no need to peruse anything else ...

Anyway, in 300, the Spartans were definitely white.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 06:19 | #

I think I have to stand corrected again. What is amazing is that the Negroid-looking Xerxes in 300 is played by a Brazilian actor who in real life could basically pass for white (Southern Euro type). Even more amazing is that he was that jailhouse Latino character in the Arnold movie The Last Stand, from earlier this year. He looked like a skinny, puny dude! How they ever got him to seem to tower over Leonidas - wonders of modern moviemaking. Imagine if we had WNs making movies with top of the line technology.

Posted by Silver on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:34 | #

Miller ‘nigged’ the Greeks?

See for yourself.

The pages are in Italian because a useful way to practice I’ve found is to read translated material. That way you can flip back to the English any time you’re unsure rather than having to look words up in a dictionary. Comics are great for this. The material is ‘easy’ and the pictures are a guide.

Those are Greeks, not Persians.

This one depicts the Spartan practise of sending children out into the wilderness to fend for themselves.  There are some swarthy Greeks out there but this is would make a Greek nationalist issue a ‘fatwa.’

Here are some Persians for comparison.

I thought he was supposed to be sort of a rightwinger.

Of the neocon persuasion, I presume.  They’re ‘cultural nationalists.’  Nothing incompatible about promoting blacks in their worldview.  If anything, it’s a sign of ‘rightwing progressivism.’  In theory, anyway.  In practice it always requires breathtaking hypocrisy—they’re not moving into niggertown any time soon, after all.  But race is a numbers game so I expect a split in their ranks to appear at some point (as the numbers continue to move against whites).

I don’t like comic books, er, “graphic novels”. I did read Watchmen years ago, and even that portentous piece I found dull, despite being advertised as the greatest graphic novel of all. If that was even close to “the greatest”, well, no need to peruse anything else ...

Like superhero movies, I’ve tried and tried but met with constant disappointment.  I can’t improve on ‘portentous.’  Best to stick to the comic books—at least they don’t pretend to be other than what they are.

Posted by Mike on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 01:43 | #

Indeed, the script of this latest “Superman” reboot was remarkably, if not eerily close to the cinematic images I would have portrayed, from the opening scene featuring a heterosexual natural birth as life-affirming rebellion against the stagnating asexual cloning reproduction of specialized “members” of a eusociety on the verge of dying out—to the final scene where the product of that birth identifies with the Nation of Settlers (“I’m from a Kansas farm” paraphrasing him) when he destroys a US government surveillance drone and as an individual confronts the military authority that his job is not to spy on individuals like him but to convince the Federal government that they should not be doing so.  It now holds the record for the highest grossing June opening in cinema history.

Zack Snyder is an intriguing phenomenon.

James,

What was your opinion of the movie overall?

Counter-Currents gave it a negative review and says that it is anti-white:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/06/man-of-steel/

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:55 | #

MIke, I think this gets back to my point about group selection necessarily degrading sex.  Clearly gay racialism makes a lot of sense if one sees race the unit of selection.  Heterosexuality merely gets in the way.  Clone reproduction is more efficient and with genetic engineering you can get highly optimized components of that unit.  Some portrayals of the Spartans emphasize gay love as superior to heterosexual relations—with the latter relegated to mere propagation.  This is another way in which Zack Snyder is intriguing—in that he refused to even hint at homosexual relations between Spartan men and emphasized heterosexual love as the ideal.

But the gay white nationalists are misreading Jewish motivation in this instance.  The parallels with Moses apply also to Jesus and Jesus was not presented as anything but a Jew by the scriptures managed by Saul et al.  When Jews need warrior zombies, they invoke the parenthetic clause of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill (unless authorized).”  In so doing they know exactly where the buttons are to push on their zombies.  In the case of Germanics, those buttons are pretty clearly present in the JudeoChristian stories and it should not surprise us they are present in Superman ramping up to WW II.  There was a lot of that leading up to WW II and there has been a lot of that during the reign of the Neocons. 

But, lets get down to brass tacks about this “Superman” myth and look at what I said about the evolution of the “Heliocentric Individual”.  This form of space settlement is dependent on individuals who possess technological symbionts not unlike dogs—but in much greater variety and physics.  These symbionts grow with the individual as s/he develops into full adulthood.  That kind of space settlement leads to, if I may invoke a UFOlogy trope: Nordics.  Gay white nationalism leads to space settlement consisting of “little green men” and a variety of other castes that are adapted to space as a distributed group organism.  Genitals?  Who need’em?  Pleasure?  All programmed in service of the racial hive.

Now, I’m not as hostile to little green men (or greys) as some individualists might be.  After all, humans do keep bees.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:25 | #

Regarding Desmond’s observation on the minimal functionality of some sexually selected characteristics (such as blonde hair and blue eyes), I should have distinguished these qualities as potentially signalling a type which wills variation - in contrast to vulgar pragmatism.

In contrast to vulgar pragmatism these qualities may provide semiotics of transcendence for the classification above mere episodic or group utility; mere utility having a eusocial connotation.

I don’t pretend to be as concerned about potential eusociality as much as Jim, but the signal of transcendence enough to organize/coordinate the pattern of European types (including those who are more individualistic) conceptually is interesting.

These aesthetics would transcend mere utility, mere pragmatism, mere empiricism to distinguish conceptually a more varied kind.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:45 | #

Oh, come now, DanielS.  You aren’t going to tell me that gay cultural emphasis on aesthetics is vulgar pragmatism.  Greek geometry, for instance, was applied with resulting spatial beauty.  These things are not “vulgar”.  Nor, for that matter, is an F-16 which is more representative of the kind of nascent gay culture of the modern era’s emphasis on the “philosophy” of mass-energy—a gay culture that is increasingly manifest in the US military.

Beauty doesn’t need to be sexual—and if we are talking about a group organism that needs cells, there is no reason those cells cannot be beautiful in an asexual way, just as is this:

You and I, atavistic heterosexuals that we are, may find this compellingly more beautiful:

But just let the gay eugenicists committed to the hive have at our genes for a few generations and beauty will be focused much more on something like this:

Posted by Mike on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:14 | #

Nor, for that matter, is an F-16 which is more representative of the kind of nascent gay culture of the modern era’s emphasis on the “philosophy” of mass-energy—a gay culture that is increasingly manifest in the US military.

James,

Could you explain what you mean here?

What do you mean by “nascent gay culture”, and how does the F-16 represent it?

What do you mean by the “philosophy” of “mass-energy”? Do you mean materialism?

And what do you mean by “gay culture” being “increasingly manifest in the US military”?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:42 | #

Maybe I should have said semiotic of conceptual transcendence of “mere pragmatism” in comprehension of the the more free and speculative pattern that would correspond to individualistic peoples.

Perhaps that sounds more clear and less queer.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:50 | #

Maybe I should have said semiotic of conceptual transcendence of “mere pragmatism” in comprehension of the the more free and speculative pattern that would correspond to individualistic peoples.

Perhaps that sounds more clear and less queer. (DanielS)

Yes, that’s much clearer.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:15 | #

the minimal functionality of some sexually selected characteristics

One hypothesis suggest it is signaling but of fitness…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

and may explain why Pakistani’s are able to influence their white female victims…

The central idea is that sexually selected traits function like conspicuous consumption, signalling the ability to afford to squander a resource simply by squandering it. Receivers know that the signal indicates quality because inferior quality signallers cannot afford to produce such wastefully extravagant signals.

Posted by Somers on Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:04 | #

Clearly gay racialism makes a lot of sense if one sees race the unit of selection.  Heterosexuality merely gets in the way.  Clone reproduction is more efficient and with genetic engineering you can get highly optimized components of that unit.  Some portrayals of the Spartans emphasize gay love as superior to heterosexual relations—with the latter relegated to mere propagation.

Greg Johnson at Counter Currents argues that homosexuality is natural and merely “suboptimal”, like “baldness, or diabetes, or myopia”, and that celibacy, masturbation, and birth control are worse than homosexuality. He argues that two heterosexuals who marry but don’t have kids are “the worst profaners of the institution of marriage” and “a FAR GREATER threat to the future of the white race than homosexuals”:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/06/the-gay-marriage-controversy/

Wouldn’t this mean that once alternative, more efficient means of reproduction and genetic engineering such as cloning and artificial wombs and the like are developed, that homosexuality would be preferable since heterosexual relations for reproduction would be obviated and since according to Johnson, heterosexual relations without reproduction are worse than homosexuality?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:32 | #

Heterosexuality is only worse for race group selectionism than is homosexuality because of its potential for compellingly greater joy of creation—which includes childbirth and rearing as an organic whole.  Group identity is subverted by heterosexual love to a degree that homosexual love cannot, simply because heterosexuality is reproductive without the group organs such as artificial wombs and the attendant eusocial infrastructure.  Short-circuit heterosexuality and it becomes as benign to group identity as homosexuality—except to the extent that the short-circuiting might be broken.

As for Greg Johnson’s hostility toward sterile heterosexual couples, it is rather like attacking, as a “threat” a woman who has been tied down,  gang-raped, and held captive without medical care long enough for the STDs to sterilize her.  The same goes for the man in the sterile heterosexual couple.

The difference is that the actual society in which we live is far worse in that it recruits the nervous systems of the victims to “voluntarily” do this to themselves.