Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:53 | #

Language has always been a field of manipulation and hence power. Orwell understood this perfectly in developing his concept of dystopian “Newspeak”, the point of which was not to facilitate comprehension of, ultimately, reality (the true purpose of language), but its opposite, and thus to make dissent from the Party’s version of ‘reality’ literally inconceivable. 

Our job is to defend truth, which begins with upholding clarity of thought and [removed]something I have repeatedly pleaded for here at MR, as elsewhere) as a moral goal, as well as useful practice.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:56 | #

My word “expression” was [removed] in my comment above. How.why? Strange.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:04 | #

I did not edit your comment.  Please state the sentence in its entirety so I can restore it.

Posted by coldequation on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:53 | #

A healthy white society (ie one with above-replacement fertility) would end up destroying other societies in the long run. There is a limited amount of resources in the world, so it would outstrip its own resources and be forced to take those of others. That’s what happened to the North American Indians and the Aborigines, and it would have happened to other groups if we had developed air conditioning and cures for tropical diseases before we lost our mojo. I suppose the anti-racists instinctively know this, which is why they’re scared by something as seemingly innocuous as a white township.

The same also goes for other groups, except that their healthy appetites are mismatched with weak teeth.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:24 | #

I did not edit that word out either, Leon.  I never edit, frankly.  What is going on?  Can the “editor” in question please contact me and let me know?

In response to James’s post, I have often encountered the step back from the accusatory “You are an inhuman racist and I am morally justified in killing you” to the explicatory “If you believe race has consequences in life you are, by your own admission, a racist, and I can still kill you.”

But, in practise, the immunity you infer to the explicator does not exist, since the debate ends on the reply “Since the only race you are attacking is mine you are, by your own admission, a racist, and I am free to resort to the morally unimpeachable right of self-defence.”

I’ve used this many, many times.  If there is a practical way for the opponent to maintain his moral supremacy and the momentum of his attack I haven’t seen it.  The usual recourse is to report the post, which is then lifted by the moderator - which is frustrating, of course, but I take it as an admission of defeat.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 02:06 | #

GW writes:

I’ve used this many, many times.  If there is a practical way for the opponent to maintain his moral supremacy and the momentum of his attack I haven’t seen it.  The usual recourse is to report the post, which is then lifted by the moderator - which is frustrating, of course, but I take it as an admission of defeat.

It may be an overextension of “censorship by omission” as practiced by “the news and entertainment media” during the 20th century, but it is an extension in their eyes.  After all, the organ over which they possess editorial control is “theirs” to host as they choose.  As such any degree of editorial control exercised is to be rendered “fair and unbiased” by the mythic “marketplace”.

Their difficulty is that due to the Internet the myth is threatening to break through to reality.  However, so long as entertainment as potentially represented by “Diary of an Antiracist” and news, as potentially represeted by scattered blog commentators in the “new right”, remain potentials, the editing out of your exchange is, indeed, a victory rather than defeat for them because they are “news” sources.

Part of the problem with white nationalist “internet activism” is that there is no genuine news organization, in either the old or the new media, that does what news organizations are actually supposed to do:

Report the news.

Until there exists such a news organization—as the potential exists with the new media—censorship on sites such as those you engage, is no admission of defeat. Even then, there is a degree to which the network effect allows them to continue their practices in the form of places like “FreeRepublic.com” and “DailyPaul.com”.

Posted by Nietzsche on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 02:53 | #

If I may:

“In your opinion I’m a racist.

You’re just saying that because I’m White.

Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White.”

http://whiterabbitradio.net

Posted by Drifter on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:03 | #

Illegal Immigrant

(CNSNews.com) - The Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is undertaking an educational campaign against the term “illegal immigrant,” seeking to inform reporters that the term “illegal immigrant” is “offensive” to Latinos.

Alternatives: criminal invader, demographic terrorist

Mental Retardation

Under “Rosa’s Law” (S.2781), various references to mental retardation will be replaced with terms such as “intellectual disabilities.”

Alternatives: mental defective

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:08 | #

James,

However, so long as entertainment as potentially represented by “Diary of an Antiracist” and news, as potentially represeted by scattered blog commentators in the “new right”, remain potentials, the editing out of your exchange is, indeed, a victory rather than defeat for them because they are “news” sources.

It’s an admission of intellectual defeat - defeat of principle - at the level of single combat to the intellectual death at which I am engaging.  The news medium reveals, by this means, a fairly extraordinary sensitivity to the non-efficacy of its policy of providing space for freelance thread-fighters to name the political Other to death with their word tools.  I mean, what does it matter, really, if a few unknown Bismuths who spend their days looking for victims at CiF get dissected by some equally unknown opponent?  But it does matter to them tremendously.  The CiF moderators are now so acquainted with my fighting style they step in earlier and earlier in the debates.

Obviously, there is something greater at stake than the evisceration of a Bismuth or two.  And that can only be that the CiF (and Indy) management are, like all liberals, highly sensitive to the underlying non-reality of the anti-racist narrative.  They know they are dealing in diktat not truth.  But they are leftists, and truth does not matter to them in the prosecution of their political obsessions.  For years they fended it off with specialist Jewish help, and lo ... the Bismuths were attentive and discovered new and inventive ways to label and dehumanise the truthspeakers.  But when this hard-won supremacy loses its efficacy, the anti-racist narrative has nothing to stand it up!  It was nothing more than labelling all along!  So then they act.  Then they censor.

Ultimately, it’s a psychological thing, imo.  These people monopolise news processing.  They have power.  But they cannot bear to exercise that power without feeling moral, and it’s the morality that we take away from them, and the morality they defend so violently.

You might consider that nothing.  I consider it knowledge and I consider it revenge, and I’ve got the notches of hundreds of dead Bismuths on my belt to prove it.

Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:09 | #

ColdEquations wrote:
A healthy white society (ie one with above-replacement fertility) would end up destroying other societies in the long run.

Is not a healthy society, by definition, one with a stable population?

A society with runaway growth will, in time, fall into Mr. Malthus’ trap. Then they get stuck. That is not “healthy”.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:46 | #

GW writes: “They have power.  But they cannot bear to exercise that power without feeling moral, and it’s the morality that we take away from them, and the morality they defend so violently. ”

I agree that they require a feeling of morality to torment us with their tyranny.  As CS Lewis so eloquently put it:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

But the Holocaustian theocrats have a comfort ready for just such circumstances, as in the Journal of Political and Military Sociology’s 2006 article, “The Strategy of White Sparatism” wherein we find this gem:

Like Blee (2002), Ferber (2004) in Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism characterizes the movement as organized racism and uses white supremacist although she acknowledges neither term may be ideal: “The term white-supremacist may obscure the fact that American society is itself white-supremacist, while the term organized racism is so broad that it is often used to include black racist groups” (Ferber 2004:15). Employing feminist analysis, she questions the goal of value-neutrality in science: “As feminist science studies have argued, objectivity is impossible and ‘evade[s] fundamental questions about whose perspectives and needs shape its particular relevances’” (p. 16). Ferber further rejects the term white separatist in part because it:

obscures the racist, supremacist nature of the movement and downplays the threat of these organizations.

While members of the movement themselves may prefer the term white separatist, this is part of the larger reframing of the movement as a movement about love and preservation of the white race rather than about racism and hatred. As 1 argued in White Man Falling, the ideology of separation assumes, indeed requires, a notion of white supremacy. There is a starting assumption that there are inherent and essential racial differences and that racial groups are inherently hierarchized, with white being by nature superior. It is this underlying foundation of racism and white supremacy that justifies their attempts to separate and preserve the white race. ... As researchers and activists, I believe, we make a mistake when we present the movement as its members wish to be presented and thereby facilitate their attempt to reframe the movement and attract new recruits. Instead, it is our task to critically interrogate the movement itself. White separatism and white supremacy are intricately bound together in the same project; however, the choice of terminology is a political, value-laden decision (p. 16).
...

The editors whom you claim as notches on your belt take moral refuge in the certain knowledge—certainty born of faith in Holocaustianity and its theological organs such as the Journal of Political and Military Sociology—that you are mendaciously abusing the good graces of human speech for “strategic” purposes.

You lose.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 04:20 | #

The CiF moderators are now so acquainted with my fighting style they step in earlier and earlier in the debates.

I didn’t know you did that kind of thing, GW. Thanks.

Posted by Jawake on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 06:42 | #

The devolution of communication is a vitally important aspect of our decline. It is quite evident in everyday life and exists everywhere in institutions (like higher education) where the conceit that experts would nip it in the bud blinds them to the ever-quickening downward spiral.
 
Essentially, as Bowery contends, it is the leftist use of language that has aided this degeneration. But the white leftist is the primary servant of the radical dehumanization of Europeans and as such, is primarily the ally with anti-White populations who do not believe they are obligated to communicate with Whites authentically.

Anti-whites and leftists seek to disempower White speech and writing primarily by gaining control of the “forum;” that is they attempt to control whatever social arena communication is disseminated. At its crudest level, control of the forum is gained through charisma in interpersonal relations. It is achieved when the charismatic person sets himself up as the group’s “champion” and the group accepts his authority.

When this happens, it must be realized that the rules of rhetoric (minimal logical fallacies in argument) will be consistently violated and the secret anti-White language will come to the fore. The victim of the charismatic should then realize that this is no longer a discussion , but an attempt at humiliation and domination through speech-a form that Blacks and a certain kind of hispanic are particularly adept at.

As politics follows language, the nightmare polemics of the Democratic Party in the Obama Era has conceded to this paradigm. That Blacks now lead the Democratic Party should be the most important factor to understanding the tactics of the Democratic Party and its increasing contempt for the majority population and its ever more frequent acts of dishonor against American traditions.

It should also be realized that the authoritarian socialism that the Dems now embrace, is also the racial stance of Black America against its perceived historic enemy. Thus, just as the charismatic cares little for the rules of rhetoric, any leader who embraces the (anti-White) charismatic style will care little for rational argument and will emphasize “looking good” in the social arena.

That Obama is a master of this form is lost on most Whites and White conservatives. However, have no doubt, it is not lost on Black America, who still support Obama by 92%.

Posted by coldequation on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:33 | #

Is not a healthy society, by definition, one with a stable population?

A society with runaway growth will, in time, fall into Mr. Malthus’ trap. Then they get stuck. That is not “healthy”.

By that standard of health, there has never been a healthy society for long. They’re either increasing or declining - the Malthusian Trap or extinction. The former is at least relatively healthy, given those two choices.

I suppose it would be possible to have zero population growth with government coercion, but that’s anathema to most whites, so there’s no reason to expect that to happen, and the possibility should offer little comforts to the non-whites who would eventually be displaced.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 10:19 | #

You could have fluctuating population that grows or declines as policy dictates, though yes the devil would be in the details as to just what policies could accomplish such a feat without leading to dysgenics.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 10:27 | #

States that are expanding tend to race mix. However, if the population is expanding, you could allow emigration out into the foreign mixed-race state / regions.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:36 | #

A palpable subtext to Bowery’s post is his implicit affirmation that we should transform our people in such fashion as allows us to thwart Jewish influence over us.  Jews are the acknowledged masters of verbal manipulation of the emotions, or “connotation-players” as Bowery would put it.  As things stand, the Jews are able to verbally empower themselves and disarm us.  That being the case, would it not be much more straight forward and less self-injurious simply to end their power over us by removing them from our midst?  Why must we institute single deadly combat as the fulcrum of social organization if it is ultimately merely a means of beating the Jews and would in fact effect the opposite of its other alleged benefits?  Individual sovereignty?  For the vast majority it would mean enslavement!  Eugenic?  In a pig’s eye!  I cannot see it would be otherwise than that it is the verbal intelligence of our people itself that would fall prey to the “eugenicist’s” blade.  Is it merely the motivation to verbally manipulate on the one hand, and the susceptibility to verbal manipulation on the other, that would be culled?  What guarantee is there other than wishful thinking?!

I can’t help but think this goes directly to GW’s insistence that the consequences of transformative teleological striving (in this instance, to become what we must to beat the Jews), as opposed to self-possession rooted in Being, results directly in moral deformation and self-ruination.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 14:46 | #

If single deadly combat is optimal from a eugenics perspective, won’t racially motivated, fourth generation warfare, within an intentionally diversified population be a huge improvement over conventional mass warfare?

Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:37 | #

ColdEquation wrote:
By that standard of health, there has never been a healthy society for long. They’re either increasing or declining - the Malthusian Trap or extinction. The former is at least relatively healthy, given those two choices.

Oriental population growth from 1300-1800 was very high, because of agricultural advances and territorial expansion. The now-famous book “Farewell to Alms” deals with this.

Northwest-Europe’s population growth, especially England’s, was comparatively very low.

Net Population Growth, ca. 1300-1750
5% England
516% Japan
375% China
[According to table 13.1]

If “a society is either growing or dying”, this would suggest that the Orient was very healthy indeed, and thus should have started the Industrial Revolution, and further that England was headed for “the Dustbin” for sure. This did not happen. (The author devotes chapter 13 to “Why England? Why Not China, India, or Japan?”.)

In the Orient, new technology went all-out towards maintaining surging populations (the classic Malthusian Trap); In Western-Europe, with far lower population-densities, man’s energies turned elsewhere.

In a related sense, the author of “Alms” shows that eugenic pressures in the Orient were weaker: A larger share of each child-generation was born to the poor than in Japan and especially China in those centuries. (This is always more likely given an expanding population.)

Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:46 | #

The now-famous book ”Farewell to Alms” deals with this.

NOTE: For those who may not know, it mainly “deals” with England, and why England spearheaded the Industrial Revolution.

The author’s thesis is that England (and probably to some extent the rest of Northwestern-Europe) was under eugenic pressure in the centuries leading up to 1800, which gave rise to the theretofore-rarely-seen-on-Earth brilliance of European Man that manifested during the 1700s-1900s. (He also sort-of suggests, IIRC, that dysgenics since 1800 may well have returned European-Man to near the original level, and that we are just coasting on ancestral achievement now). He uses old tax records, birth records, and death records to prove it, and makes a convincing case.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:00 | #

Jimmy, its all about selecting the form of dispute resolution that is most eugenic.  People have to stop sniping and start proposing if they are to remain relevant.  It seems few here at MR care seriously about their relevance.  Because of phenomena like the connotation-play, it is clear that word combat just doesn’t make it as an ultimate dispute processing mode—and that holds even in an all white polity.  Some think we can resort to mass warfare in response and I’d like to have seen, in the thread posted for that purpose, their arguments for why mass warfare would be eugenic.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:10 | #

Jimmy, its all about selecting the form of dispute resolution that is most eugenic.  People have to stop sniping and start proposing if they are to remain relevant.

Perhaps people disagree with the way you are framing the issue. Why, one might ask, does the necessity for proeugenics in conflict resolution, take precedence over other aspects of society.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:37 | #

What aspects of society are more important to responsible men than the direction of genetic evolution set by its culture?  Do you consider eugenics above conflict?  I don’t.  I see eugenics merely as agreeing on what is “fair” in dispute processing.  The idea that you can resolve disputes without force is silly so you are left with the question that I keep putting to people but they run from it like the cowards they are.  I’m getting fed up.

Posted by coldequation on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:45 | #

Hail: Oriental society was healthy in that it wasn’t about to self-destruct. Only outside pressure could have done that. In hindsight, the Orient c. 1700 looks healthier than the West c. 1700, because the West carried the seeds of its own destruction and the Orient didn’t. If technological prowess equaled health, we would be in great shape in the West in 2010.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:40 | #

What aspects of society are more important to responsible men than the direction of genetic evolution set by its culture?

Perhaps I’ve not explained myself clearly.

Proeugenics, as it relates specifically to conflict resolution might not be the be-all-end-all for some.

Are you of the opinion that civilization is conflict and therefore there is no other possible situations to which adaptivity applies?

Posted by danielj on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:41 | #

The idea that you can resolve disputes without force is silly so you are left with the question that I keep putting to people but they run from it like the cowards they are.

Do you challenge your wife to single combat every time you have a disagreement?

Or is she spectacularly and uniformly submissive and therefore under the umbrella of your protection?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:42 | #

they run from it like the cowards they are.

While a failure to engage may be attributable to cowardice, it can also be interpreted as a lack of patriotism, or a superficiality of understanding.

When considering the single combat gambit, courage is factor, but there is also the issue of altruism. Some have referred to the acceptance of single combat as suicidal, and in some cases, on an individual level, it could be. But in a society of committed eugenicists, there would be no possibility of ever “losing” at single combat because even suicide, under the those circumstances, would be eugenic, and thus a victory.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:06 | #

Jimmy,

You are at least tangentially associated with the Northwest Front.  I hope you have not forgotten it.  Harold Covington is a lover of Europe’s people and their civilization.  It is these, accordingly, he seeks to save.  As such, for him fourth generation warfare is but a means to the end of achieving the Republic where what is most dear to him can endure in perpetuity.  Fourth generation warfare is not intended by him to be a permanent state of internal affairs.

Do you feel differently?

Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:19 | #

ColdEquation wrote:
Oriental society was healthy in that it wasn’t about to self-destruct. Only outside pressure could have done that. In hindsight, the Orient c. 1700 looks healthier than the West c. 1700, because the West carried the seeds of its own destruction and the Orient didn’t. If technological prowess equaled health, we would be in great shape in the West in 2010.

Good points, but it seems you are conceding, sort of, that Stability = Health, which was my original point. (Which drew a enigmatic riddle from Soren Renner which I presume was critical).

Oriental codes of ethics, cultural peculiarities, and religions all seem to promote social stability as the highest virtue.

“Promote social stability as the highest virtue” is a functional definition of what Confucianism is.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:38 | #

“all seem to promote social stability as the highest virtue.”

I like that, though I wouldn’t put it as highest. We in the West are killing ourselves, but Qing China likely wouldn’t be killing itself today.

I don’t find Larison ideal of course, but I like his blog title: “eunomia”.

The Herculean task that likely none of us are capable of achieving is how to get our race(s) not to commit suicide. If we can just achieve that, the next generation will at least still be around to handle these other matters.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:53 | #

Bowery,

its all about selecting the form of dispute resolution that is most eugenic.

No.  It is about instituting the form of intra-group dispute resolution within the context of a stable, homogeneous society.  Needless to say, any proposed mode of internal dispute resolution would need to be evolutionarily stable.  You overplay your hand in your assertion that a particular form of dispute resolution must be “most” eugenic and not simply avoid dysgenics in a genetically sustainable fashion.

People have to stop sniping and start proposing if they are to remain relevant.

It is incumbent upon one who proposes a given solution to what ails our race to convincingly defend his own proposition and not “snipe” at critics of said for mounting criticism that he is apparently unable to answer.  That is, if he wishes to remain relevant.

The idea that you can resolve disputes without force is silly

Yes.  That is why dispute resolution should ultimately rest with duly, legally empowered authorities.

Because of phenomena like the connotation-play, it is clear that word combat just doesn’t make it as an ultimate dispute processing mode—and that holds even in an all white polity.

There are degrees of legally authorized punishments for transgressions against persons, property, and as I would like to see, the race - culminating in execution.

“run from it like the cowards they are.”

I’ll respond to - ironically what was itself a bit of “connotation-play” in indirectly asking the critics of your propositions to ‘put up or shut up’ lest they be “cowards” - your eugenics query now. 

People mate and associate assortatively per genetic similarity theory.  It is something they just naturally do, we don’t need to force them.  What we need to do is to find a way to rig the deck to ensure a at least replacement level birth rate especially from those individuals who carry the genetic traits we deem desirable.  This can be achieved by channeling women out of the workforce during their prime fertility years.  Salter speculates that women when given the opportunity also look to their own status, and are cautious about wanton child birthing, as this would tend to increase the likelihood of their offspring being reproductively viable.  That many of the women who carry the genetic traits we deem most desirable forgo motherhood or bear few children is not a negation of the maternal instinct according to Salter.  There is quite often, as he relates, regret later once they have passed menopause.  It is effectively a delay of motherhood that amounts to its negation due to a maladaptive society-wide architecture of status allotment.  What we do is to change the architecture of status allotment.  We deny college entrance, and hence career advancement, to women of child bearing years.  If they wish to have a high status career, it will have to wait.  If they wish for status in the meantime, they had best find a high status mate and bear his children.  Additionally, if they have not had a given number of children once they are of the eligible age they will be denied admittance to higher education and hence career advancement.

Any thoughts, Bowery?

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:11 | #

If we bring back the duel, we’ll likely bring back the feud. Whites defend their kin when feuding, and hey maybe that’s a good thing.

Society would be less stable though.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:15 | #

When feuding, the principle seems to have been, “my kin right or wrong”. Even if you’re justified in killing another, you better be ready to fight off his kin or compensate via material possessions for the loss.

This sort of thing works for an agricultural society, but I’m doubtful it’d work well in an urban industrial society.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:23 | #

CC,

Interestingly, the rough draft the NWR constitution, already contains a provisional form of code duello, but that would only become effective after the nation was actually established.

I have wanted to discuss the possibility of incorporating Bowery’s plan in the constitution, but as yet have not had an opportunity to do so.

I’d like to hear your thoughts, if you have any, about the incidental similarities between single combat and atomized warfare.

The primary difficulty I encounter with Bowery’s proposal is in the matter of implementation. But I am beginning to cognize a defacto variant emerging in the form of violent crime, and since I see nothing but escalation in our future, I’m looking for a positive eugenic perspective.

At least positive in comparison to the catastrophe of WWII.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:44 | #

In the South / US one could decline a duel.

In Japan, an honourable samurai only fought those he deemed worthy of fighting, meaning only the best died.

With modern warfare, feuding might involve powerful weapons.

Posted by Edward on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 22:53 | #

Go to http://whiterabbitradio.net/ to learn how to deal with the anti-Whites. Start at podcast one. It is important to listen to these podcasts in order.

The Mantra is the mindweapon all pro-White activists should be using - it works, but you have to use it!

The Mantra:-

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the Third World pours into EVERY White country and ONLY into White countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of Third Worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-Whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-Blacks were brought into EVERY Black country and ONLY into Black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I am not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane Black man to notice this and what kind of psycho Black man would not object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the White Race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 23:08 | #

Jimmy,

I’d like to hear your thoughts, if you have any, about the incidental similarities between single combat and atomized warfare.

The “similarities” are incidental indeed.  Warfare, even of the decentralized insurgent variety, must necessarily involve some degree of coordination and corresponding degrees of authority lest it degenerate into ineffectuality.  Meaning, you don’t get to challenge those on your team to a fight to the death any time the mood strikes you.  Obviously.

The primary difficulty I encounter with Bowery’s proposal is in the matter of implementation.

The stable implementation of single deadly combat would require nothing less than its being enmeshed in a religion which enshrined it as divinely ordained ritual as it cuts so sharply against the grain of kin selection.  This is an impossibility as religions cannot simply be created in an age where reason is privileged.  Religions are yet believed because their origins are now hopelessly shrouded in the past and hence beyond the reach of reasoned investigation.  They cannot be directly and definitively refuted so there is a space for the faithful to believe.

But I am beginning to cognize a defacto variant emerging in the form of violent crime, and since I see nothing but escalation in our future,

Attempt it under the existing dispensation and Bowery himself will tell you you will be rewarded with a trip to the federal pen where you can expect to encounter the unwanted affections of many an amorous nig…Afro-Englishman.

I’m looking for a positive eugenic perspective.

There can be no positive eugenic outcome under the existing dispensation in the main.  That is why the object is to change that dispensation.

the rough draft the NWR constitution, already contains a provisional form of code duello

I do not agree with that.  Although if good reason for were shown for it I am open to reconsidering.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 01:37 | #

Frank writes: “If we bring back the duel, we’ll likely bring back the feud. Whites defend their kin when feuding, and hey maybe that’s a good thing.”

Blood feud became the dominant appeal of last resort in dispute processing after “Christianity” (which formed the first Althing) outlawed single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing.

Can you think of any reason why blood feud might result from banning single combat?

ie: Can you try to lift the veil from your eyes and see “Christianity” clearly?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:08 | #

you don’t get to challenge those on your team to a fight to the death any time the mood strikes you.

We may have to improvise for a bit.

The stable implementation of single deadly combat would require nothing less than its being enmeshed in a religion

I’m working on that as we speak, and my first convert seems to be in the making.

Attempt it under the existing dispensation and Bowery himself will tell you you will be rewarded with a trip to the federal pen

Murder’s typically a state rap, but I know what you mean, and I’m not advocating illegality as much as I am pointing out that Whites are already under covert siege by low-grade guerilla warfare in the form of under-reported, non-White criminality.

There can be no positive eugenic outcome under the existing dispensation in the main.  That is why the object is to change that dispensation.

That’s what I liked about Kai’s Random Rantings. I enjoy the possibility that the current dispensation is, in fact, dispensing with itself.

Captcha = 88plans

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 02:20 | #

CC writes: “I’ll respond to - ironically what was itself a bit of “connotation-play” in indirectly asking the critics of your propositions to ‘put up or shut up’ lest they be “cowards” - your eugenics query now.”

Its easy to pick up the bad habits of one’s enemies.  Therefore let me clarify “cowards”:

Clearly if someone pseudonymously insults the honor of someone who is open about their identity and does not enjoy the backing of the State or media publicity machine, the word “coward” is applicable in every sense and connotation. 

If one attacks a publicly posted proposal that is clear enough to be criticized, while implying there is a superior proposal, but that superior proposal is not published, let alone clear enough to be criticized, then we may need to modify with “intellectual coward”.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:37 | #

Bowery:

while implying there is a superior proposal, but that superior proposal is not published, let alone clear enough to be criticized,

My proposal directly addresses ending “corporate concubinage” as you call it.  The fertility that is lost to the careerism of “corporate concubines” would be gained under my proposal.  You don’t wish to end “corporate concubinage”?

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 06:24 | #

Attractive women with high IQs during their fertile years will be denied the opportunity to pursue status via higher education and a career.  If they are not educated beyond the high school level they will not be in the least competent to pursue a career, so they won’t be able to pursue one.  If they wish to enter the workforce, they’ll have to start out at the bottom: as a waitress or something.  Not very high status.  How then to satisfy the desire on their part for high status?  Marry a high status man and bear his children.  Later, once their prime fertile years are passed, and their children are raised, they will have the opportunity to achieve additional status by pursuing higher education and a career if they wish.  If they have had no children by the time their prime fertility years have passed they will be legally prohibited from entrance to higher education.  The additional sweetener of scholarship money tied not only to ability but number of children born to them could be added.  If they bear, say, four children, then they get a full-ride scholarship to any university that will accept them.  This will be a step in the right direction to ensuring a eugenic breeding pattern.

What is not “clear enough” about that?

Posted by pug on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:50 | #

I think nationalism ought to deal with the Big Two first.

Writes Edmond Henri Adolphe Schérer in the introduction to Vol. VIII of his Études sur la littérature contemporaine (1885):

L’âge enseigne à douter, l’expérience à se défier. À se défier du mot surtout, car le mot est comme la langue, ce qu’il y a de meilleur et de pire au monde. Il est le signe de l’idée, partant le privilège de l’être pensant; mais comme il nous fait payer ce privilège! Il est l’outil de la science, mais il est aussi l’occasion des erreurs, la source des préjugés, et, pour me servir de l’expression baconienne, l’artisan des idoles. Ce sont les mots qui font l’histoire, qui mènent le monde; il en est qui ont ébranlé des États jusque dans leurs fondements, qui ont consommé des révolutions ; il en est pour lesquels aujourd’hui encore on se divise et on se dévoue; il est des mots privilégiés, des mots orthodoxes, des mots sacrés devant lesquels tout homme prudent tire son chapeau. Avisez-vous, par exemple, de demander ce que c’est que le progrès ou d’insinuer que l’humanité pourrait bien n’être qu’une abstraction, et vous verrez si l’on ne vous tient pas pour une ganache ou un pervers.

Soyons pervers et osons dire que le progrès est l’un des paralogismes auxquels conduit la généralisation inconsidérée et que déguise le terme abstrait. La notion d’un perfectionnement indéfini est empruntée aux sciences exactes et aux arts industriels, où chaque conquête devient le point de départ d’une acquisition nouvelle, de sorte qu’il est impossible de prévoir que l’espèce humaine s’arrête jamais dans cette voie d’enrichissements successifs. En outre, le bien-être général dépendant de l’état de l’industrie, les perfectionnements de celle-ci ont pour conséquence l’accroissement de celui-là. Il y a donc, cela est incontestable, progrès social au sens matériel du mot; il y a, de jour en jour, plus de souffrances écartées, plus de jouissances mises à la portée d’un plus grand nombre de nos semblables, et c’est là, il ne m’en coûtepas do le reconnaître, quelque chose de considérable. J’avoue même que c’est l’essentiel. L’erreur commence, en revanche, quand on s’imagine que ce qui est vrai de l’ordre pratique et positif, l’est également de l’ordre moral, quand on suppose que la société croît en droiture, en équité, en modération, en pudeur, en délicatesse de sentiment, par une évolution nécessaire et un développement automatique. Et cette erreur vient d’une autre. On confond le bien-être avec le bonheur, tandis qu’il n’en est qu’une des conditions. Le bonheur c’est le contentement qui, s’il suppose à coup sûr la satisfaction des besoins, n’en est pourtant pas la conséquence. Le bonheur est, avant tout, état de l’âme, affaire de disposition, philosophie de là vie, si bien qu’on peut être heureux avec peu de jouissances et misérable avec la facilité de satisfaire tous ses désirs. Ramené à son vrai sens, le progrès social ne saurait donc assurer le bonheur de personne, encore moins nous promettre celui du genre humain. Il se pourrait même que le progrès allât ici à contre-fin, le contentement étant un produit de la sagesse, et la sagesse étant le fruit d’une culture intellectuelle plus raffinée que ne le comporte, selon toute apparence, le nivellement démocratique. Il faut en prendre son parti, les hommes perdent le plus souvent d’un côté ce qu’ils gagnent de l’autre, et l’histoire est condamnée à rester jusqu’au bout une cote mal taillée.

L’humanité est un autre de ces termes généraux qu’on se passe comme une monnaie courante, sans songer à en vérifier l’aloi, une de ces abstractions qui défraient nos incurables besoins mystiques. Nous avons une famille, un entourage, une cité, une patrie, et avec ceux-là, avec nos parents, nos amis et nos concitoyens, nous avons des affinités de race et des communautés d’intérêts. Mais cela ne nous suffit pas : nous étendons en esprit cette parenté déjà bien peu réelle dans la portée que nous venons de lui donner, nous y faisons entrer tout le genus homo, puis nous idéalisons cette donnée d’histoire naturelle, nous la personnifions, nous l’érigeons en puissance supérieure, nous prononçons son nom avec une sorte d’attendrissement, nous entonnons des hymnes en son honneur, nous faisons couler l’encre sur ses autels, l’encre et quelquefois le sang; les plus fervents vont jusqu’à lui sacrifier leur vie sur la barricade ou l’échafaud. Nous avons, dans le grand naufrage des croyances, reporté sur cette conception tous nos besoins de foi, d’espérance et d’amour. Que dis-je? c’est Comte lui-même, c’est le positivisme qui s’est chargé de constituer l’humanité en objet de culte. On a débarrassé le monde de la théologie et de la métaphysique, et l’on reste le jouet d’un mot.

L’humanité, une grande famille! Les hommes tous frères! N’est-ce pas aller bien loin? Le lien de fraternité, le sentez-vous très distinctement, quand vous rencontrez, dans un livre de voyage, la figure d’un Papou ou même celle d’un Chinois? Entre nous et tout bas : la déesse humanité ne ressemble-t-elle pas souvent à une guenon? [...] L’humanité ne me dit rien. Où la voit-on cette humanité, où la trouve-t-on? Dans le nombre môme des hommes et des femmes que je rencontre, combien n’en est-il pas avec lesquels je n’éprouve aucun besoin de lier plus étroite connaissance ? Je ne puis assez admirer la force d’abstraction des personnes qui, dans le débordement de leurs sympathies, oublient le laid, le sot et le vulgaire, ne tiennent compte ni du vicieux, ni du vil, ni de l’atroce. On ne prendrait pas la main de celui-ci : c’est égal, c’est un frère. On l’envoie aux galères, on lui coupe la tète: toujours frère! Quant à moi, le genre humain m’amuse, il m’intéresse, mais il ne m’inspire, dans sa totalité, ni respect ni tendresse; je décline la solidarité.

Transl. [my UL]:

Age teaches doubt, and experience to distrust. Distrust of the word in particular, since words are like the tongue, the best of all things and the worst of all things. A word is the sign of an idea, and it has all the privileges of a thinking being; but bow dearly have we to pay for this privilege! It is the tool of science, but it is also the occasion of errors, the source from which prejudices spring; and, to employ a Baconian phrase, it is the artisan of idols. Words make history; words lead the world; there are words that have shaken States to their very foundations, and that have consummated revolutions. There are words for which, even to this day, men divide themselves into parties or to which they sacrifice themselves. There are privileged words, orthodox words, sacred words, before which prudent men bow themselves. Let the fancy seize you some day to ask what is progress ? or to insinuate that humanity after all might be only an abstraction, and you will soon perceive that you are thought to be an idiot or a knave.

Let us be graceless, and let us dare to say that progress is one of the sophisms to which over-hasty generalisation leads, and that it is only the disguise of an abstract term. The idea of indefinite improvement is borrowed from the exact sciences and from the industrial arts, where each conquest becomes the starting-point for a new acquisition, so that it is impossible to foresee that the human species will ever be arrested in this line of successive enrichments. Furthermore, the general prosperity being dependent upon the state of trade, the improvement of the one will have for its consequence the improvement of the other. Here is therefore, without contradiction, social progress—from a materialistic point of view. From day to day suffering, pain is alleviated, and more numerous enjoyments are put within the reach of our fellow-beings; and this is (it costs me nothing to recognise it) something very considerable. I even confess that this is all that is essential. The error is born when it is thought that what is true in the material and positive order of things, is also true in the moral order; when it is supposed that society increases in rectitude, in equity, in moderation, in purity, in delicacy of sentiment by a necessary evolution and an automatic development. This error springs from another error. Well-being is confounded with happiness, when in reality it is only one of its conditions. Happiness is contentment, which, if it does certainly imply the satisfaction of needs, is nevertheless not the consequence of that satisfaction. Happiness is above all a state of soul, an affair of disposition, the philosophy of life; so much so, that it is possible to be very happy with very few enjoyments, and miserable with the possibility of satisfying any desire. Brought back to its true significance, social progress cannot assure the happiness of a single person, much less of humankind. It is even possible that progress will militate against happiness, contentment being a product of wisdom, and wisdom being the product of an intellectual culture more refined than will be perhaps obtained under democratic levelling. We must therefore make up our minds to this: that men lose on the one hand what they gain on the other, and that history is condemned to remain to the end of the chapter a mass of confusion.

Humanity is another of those general terms that is exchanged like current coin, without any one having ever dreamt of verifying the amount of alloy it contains. It is one of those abstractions that defray our incurable mystical necessities. We have a family, a surrounding, a city, a fatherland, and with these, with our relatives, our friends, our fellow-citizens, we have affinities of race and community of interests. But this is not enough for us. We extend in thought the limits of this relationship—already so wanting in reality—and we take in our thoughts the whole genus homo ! then we idealize these data of natural history, we personify it, we establish it as a supernatural power, we pronounce its name with deep feeling, we chant hymns in its praise, we shed ink upon its altars, ink and sometimes blood; the most fervent sacrifice their lives to it on barricades or on the scaffold. In the great shipwreck of creeds, we have transferred to this conception all our needs of faith, hope and love. What do I say ? It is Comte himself, it is Positivism, which has charged itself with the task of establishing humanity into an object of worship. The world has got rid of theology and of metaphysics, but it has remained the dupe of a word.

Humanity a great family! Men all brothers ! Is not this going very far ? Do you feel very distinctly the tie of brotherhood when you meet in a book of travels the picture of a Papuan or even of a Chinaman ? Between us, and whispered softly : Does not the godless humanity often resemble a female monkey? [...] Humanity tells me nothing. Where is this humanity seen, where is it found ? Amongst the men and women I meet with here how many are there with whom I do not desire to have any closer acquaintance ? I cannot sufficiently admire the power of abstraction of those persons who in the exuberance of their sympathies overlook the ugly, the sottish, the vulgar, and pay no heed to what is vicious, vile and atrocious. You would not shake that man’s hand : true—but he is a brother. You send him to the galleys, to the gallows: but he is always a brother! Humanity amuses me, it interests me, but, as a whole, it inspires me neither with respect nor with affection. I decline all solidarity.’

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 00:48 | #

CC asks: “What is not “clear enough” about that?”

For starters: You say nothing about the operations by which men are to achieve their high status and that is crucial since distribution of male fertility dominates the direction of the future.

You could do everything you speak of and end up with merely a transformation of “corporate concubine” from a metaphor to “managerial elite concubine” as a fertile reality.  Do you see the managerial elite fertilizing a bunch of housewives as eugenic?

Good luck with that.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 02:43 | #

Lynn’s concept differs in the fact that he advocates embryo selection rather than mother selection.

Lynn argues that embryo selection as a form of standard reproductive therapy would raise the average intelligence of the population by 15 IQ points in a single generation (p. 300). If couples produce a hundred embryos, he argues, the range in potential IQ would be around 15 points above and below the parents’ IQ. Lynn argues this gain could be repeated each generation, eventually stabilizing the population’s IQ at a theoretical maximum of around 200 after as little as six or seven generations.

However, who knows if such a population with these alleged superior traits will ultimately prove “fit”.

Currently, it appears, the pursuit of wealth provides a reproductive differential.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 05:04 | #

Bowery:

You say nothing about the operations by which men are to achieve their high status

A diverse division of labor provides a variety of potential avenues for men to achieve high status.  But generally speaking, male status would seem to rest in a suite of traits such as intelligence, charisma, looks, athleticism, vocational excellence and wealth accumulation.  Those are the guys of get the girls.

Do you see the managerial elite fertilizing a bunch of housewives as eugenic?

An additional goal would be to strengthen monogamous marriage and traditional gender roles as cultural institutions using education and media as tools of reinforcement.  This would put a bottleneck on the ability of a “managerial elite” to hog choice females for themselves as this activity would be considered shameful and damaging to their reputations (i.e., damaging to their status). 

Correspondingly, instead of choice females of reproductive age looking toward education and a career they would be looking toward getting a high status husband.  A husband who they would be committed to all their lives due to social pressure and the repeal of no-fault divorce laws.

As for the “managerial elite” itself, needless to say, there would be one in place committed to WN goals.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:35 | #

CC writes: “As for the “managerial elite” itself, needless to say, there would be one in place committed to WN goals.”

Equally “needless to say” is that there must be some operation by which those in power are replaced by those “committed to WN goals”.  This is inseparable from eugenics as those currently in power see furtherance of Cochrane and Harpending’s “10,000 Year Explosion” as eugenic.  This genetic “conflict of interest” (or should I say, unity of interest) is a necessary feature of authority.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:36 | #

Bowery, you would need state power or to defeat the power of the state in order to impose single deadly combat anyway.  And if you had accomplished that, you would already be in a position to replace the former elite of the state.  So at that point, why not just skip imposing single deadly combat and put in place new elites to run the racial state?  What is the decisive effect of single deadly combat that is absolutely essential to prevent the genetic degeneration of our race and in what specific ways do you believe our race will degenerate genetically unless SDC is imposed?

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:48 | #

CC writes: “you would need state power or to defeat the power of the state”

There are other ways to defeat the power of the state.

And you call yourself “Captainchaos.”

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:00 | #

“Blood feud became the dominant appeal of last resort in dispute processing after “Christianity” (which formed the first Althing) outlawed single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing.

Can you think of any reason why blood feud might result from banning single combat? “

I’ll take your word on that I suppose, but I imagine an arse who kills your brothers and is too tough solo would be taken down via a group. We’re lacking the religious component behind the Norse system, even if we assume the single combat was as you claim.

A true atheist wouldn’t bother about honour and fairness. He’d declare himself an “Übermensch” and “transcend” the “values set by other men”, refusing to be a “slave”, etc.

Posted by Covington 101 on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:38 | #

There are other ways to defeat the power of the state.

Ultimately, in a capitalist system, this amounts to nothing more than making it unprofitable to do business in a certain area.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:49 | #

But how, Bowery, do you propose to thwart the tendency to privilege extended family, kin, in order to impose SDC in the instance of a breakdown of the state?  Clearly the disintegration of the state would usher in a heavier reliance on extended kinship.  To ask a man to stand aside as his cousin walked into the woods to certain death against an opponent in single deadly combat his cousin could not plausible beat would truly be an insufferable injury to that man’s Being.  He would not abide it.  He would without hesitation discharge a .45 slug right between the eyes of his cousin’s prospective opponent lest his cousin be slaughtered like livestock, like “goyim”.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:29 | #

Frank and Captainchaos: I certainly understand where you are coming from.  You think you would lose even though it is clear that men kill beasts vastly more powerful than themselves.  You don’t recognize your own capacity as men.  But it is fantastic to claim that there is no natural law, no true religion, behind the ethos of single combat to the death.  The reason the “Christians” had to ban single combat is the same reason Hollywood has to mutilate images of it in virtually every action adventure movie:

It is a deeper part of Being toward Death and it is more authentic than kinship.

Real Christianity isn’t the nonsense of the Bible any more than real Norse religion is the nonsense of the Eddas.  Both are the editorial spin control of theocrats who would likely have killed John the Baptist for practicing shamanism and did kill “pagans” and “heathens” for similar relations with Nature and Nature’s God.

Despite their best efforts, some remnants remain:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:28 | #

“You think you would lose even though it is clear that men kill beasts vastly more powerful than themselves.  You don’t recognize your own capacity as men.”

No. You think I’d be king in a Spartan society? I’ve been raised on modern comforts… Nothing I’ve posted is designed to suit me personally…

I don’t find single combat helpful, and it appears that you’re viewing this through rose tinted glasses, which is extremely common for activists who stumble upon something that seems wonderful at the time.

I respect there’s a need to think outside the box and consider older traditions, but I just don’t see this one.

-

Christ wasn’t bringing single combat. You could quote St. Thomas on the need for a death penalty for preventing evil from continuing, and it wouldn’t justify single combat.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:56 | #

You want me to “read up” on the Greeks yet you failed to respond when I told you about Lycurgus.  He was a dragon-maker whose chief “virtue” was the clear understanding of the use of promoting homosexuality.  The clarity of thinking of Lycurgus is without peer compared to the moderns who want to mutilate man to build semi-organisms.  The purity of his evil is an exemplar.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:23 | #

Well, I replied that I thought you’d take more from it. It sounded like it was your first time reading that, so I assumed you hadn’t read much by them…

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:42 | #

Wait, “promoted” homosexuality? In Xenophon’s text that I linked?

I think I ought to say something also about intimacy with boys, since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other Greek states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together, like married people;5 elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example, consent is won by means of favours. Some, on the other hand, entirely forbid suitors to talk with boys. [13]

The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy’s soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy’s outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other. [14]

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:47 | #

No, I’m referring to Plutarch, among others.  Read up on the Greeks, Frank.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:51 | #

In an entirely different text, Xenophon’s Symposium: Socrates (who was a homo pedophile) is recorded by Xenophon as saying:

In contrast to this, the Lacedaemonians, who hold that if a person so much as feels a carnal concupiscence he will never come to any good end, cause the objects of their love to be so consummately brave that even when arrayed with foreigners and even when not stationed in the same line with their lovers they just as surely feel ashamed to desert their comrades.

I’m not sure that reveals homosexuality though… It sounds like strong, nonsexual friendship.

I’m aware that experts teach otherwise, but experts cannot be trusted on such a politically important matter. I’d want to see an explanation.

-

Aristotle writes in Politics. Book 2.:

So that the inevitable result is that in a state thus constituted wealth is held in honor, especially if it is the case that the people are under the sway of their women, as most of the military and warlike races are,

...

For it appears that the original teller of the legend had good reason for uniting Ares with Aphrodite, for all men of martial spirit appear to be attracted to the companionship either of male associates or of women. Hence this characteristic existed among the Spartans, and in the time of their empire many things were controlled by the women

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:53 | #

Plutarch lived later than Xenophon. Xenophon would have better seen the original design.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:00 | #

Bowery:

I certainly understand where you are coming from.

Apparently you don’t.

You think you would lose even though it is clear that men kill beasts vastly more powerful than themselves.

I’ve killed beasts.  I’ve broken the bones of men in single combat.  I have a metal plate and screws in my right hand as a reminder.

It is a deeper part of Being toward Death and it is more authentic than kinship.

There is no more authentic part of Being toward Life than loyalty to kin.  When all else is stripped away, loyalty is the only thing I respect, and everything else ain’t worth shit.  Loyalty is the highest value.  I don’t need any crackpot religion or “philosophy” to tell me that.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:15 | #

Apparently Bowery has no answer to this most pertinent of questions:

What is the decisive effect of single deadly combat that is absolutely essential to prevent the genetic degeneration of our race and in what specific ways do you believe our race will degenerate genetically unless SDC is imposed?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:57 | #

Single deadly combat expresses creation through the destruction of that which needs destroying.  Everyone thinks they know best what needs destroying.  This is a primordial dispute and if the dispute is resolved in any manner other than direct individual combat, it had better be in accord with agreements so simple that any individual of reproductive age can clearly understand them.  If they are not that simple, for example if they are instead to be divined from the mind of some king, oligarchy or the meaning of some mountain of words posing as “law”, then you are merely building a semi-organism composed of what were formerly individuals, now mutilated to be more perfect components.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 01:18 | #

You don’t need to calculate tradition - all within a traditional society just know it.

Cicero provided the first systematic articulation of natural law (1). He associated natural law with right reason, with the mind of God, and finally as something already instantiated in Roman law, history and custom. Traditional Roman laws accorded with nature, and it was custom (mos maiorum) that nourishes these laws for citizens. The average citizen did not need to perform an algorithm in his head to determine right action. He had only to defer to customary practice.

Mos maiorum underlined most Roman moral thought. The mos maiorum, however, was not an abstract ideal to overturn historical precedent. It was historical precedent. And not only was this their moral tradition, it was also their ancestral tradition. It comprised the customary, time-tested ways of their ancestors as transmitted by blood and progeny.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:28 | #

Reg. Sparta:

Xenophon is a much better authority than Plutarch on the matter, considering Xenophon lived much earlier, fought under the Spartans, represented them, received territory by them, revered the Spartan system, and sent his own two sons to be trained under them.

Most “experts” tend to choose Plutarch over Xenophon though. I find this is outrageous.

Plutarch merely visited Sparta. Plutarch came from a region where buggery was more popular.

-

In addition to all that Xenophon is more worth reading than Plutarch, in general. Xenophon is the better thinker.