|
|
|
Civilization Takedown: Hunger Games and the Natural Duel Archetype If you are not clear about the meaning of the term “natural duel”, first read and re-read “The Tale of Lin Tse” (with codification at Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals (revised).) As a warning to the majority, (the majority of Majority Rights’ commentariate being only one sampling): when you scoff at the culture—the socially honored routes to women giving birth and men giving death—that created to you, you scoff at your very being. As the fundamental conflict between expanding technological civilization and Earth continues unabated, I will, from time to time, continue to present some of the facets of that conflict toward what I see as an ultimate resolution bifurcating humanity into a eusocial species departing from the biosphere, and fully individuated man, no longer ”...stuck in between” to use E. O. Wilson’s words that unintentionally recall those of Nietzsche. Read on… Last Tuesday morning, for some reason I can’t recall (if “reason” there had been to my waking consciousness), the image of Erda’s warning to Wotan in “The Ring Cycle” came to mind. Recalling Melvin Gorham’s 1979 narrative adaptation titled “The Ring Cycle: Young Lovers of the 21st Century”*, I went down to my inventory of Sovereign Press books that I had purchased in bulk many years ago, and retrieved a copy. Opening the previously unopened book at random, my eyes fell, without searching, on this line.
Startled by this synchronicity, I have been revisiting Gorham’s work. Erda’s speech is a warning about “speech” itself: The aboriginal creative consciousness “speaks” with a woman’s power over birth and a man’s power over death. Apart from this, even Wotan—the wisest of the gods—is a fool. In my attempt to depart not from these two “words” with which we as “children of the most high” embody creation, please indulge this old fool’s further words: This week a movie smashed box office records. It is evidence that Jews are preparing, in the public consciousness, a post-apocalypse image drawing its mythic power from the Natural Duel archetype—an archetype that is an essential achievement of sexuality in multicellular being. Although Jews have been playing games with this archetype since the story of David and Goliath, only very rarely is the Natural Duel archetype portrayed as in a setting even remotely resembling the Natural setting essential to Natural Duel. In all but one of those rare exceptions, the portrayal of a “natural” setting has been with a patently unfair contest in which casting has chosen men of manifestly Northern European phenotypes (usually “racists”) to gang up on a lone individual in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. The single case (the movie “The Postman”) where these Pacific Northwest “goy” types engage in anything resembling a fair contest in a Natural setting, seemed custom designed to distort Gorham’s codification of the Natural Duel—which codification prohibits either combatant from exiting Nature if either is permanently disabled. This prevents exactly the kind of disgusting relationship that David Brin portrayed where a man crippled by combat is the eternal slave of the “victor”. I was in David Brin’s professional millieu in La Jolla when he wrote The Postman. Although I never read any of his books (he struck me as a particularly smarmy and disgusting person even if I had a penchant for science fiction), the “neopagan” movement was increasingly in evidence in the science fiction community, and the real pagan community hosted by Gorham was, in those years, giving birth—flesh and blood birth—to its next generation under a “simulation” of the culture as codified by Gorham. I can easily imagine Brin who lauds “the little, gracious things” of civilization as being aware of that community and seeing a truly viable culture, openly hostile to Jewish intrigues, emerging from the 60s as a mortal threat. In a way, David Brin may be a “visionary” in the Jewish project to “perfect the world” by denying Nature. In this, the latest, and highly successful attempt to parasitize the much hated pre-JudeoChristian culture of Northern Europeans, the heroine (it had to be a female of course, rather than the male it would usually be in Natural Duel) is actually equipped as per Gorham’s codification: a 20cm blade and 15meters of strong cordage (enough to jerk up a grown man’s weight). Moreover, she pursues exactly the kind of strategy that Gorham’s codification of Natural Duel allows for the weak to triumph over the brute. But then, of course, so as to distort the true culture of sexual creation, the Natural Duel archetype is distorted:
* Observers are not only allowed, but the whole event is broadcast live on television as a major event for the world to witness. Moreover, the conflict between the power of manipulated masses and “young love” (the words used in the movie) is starkly portrayed in the climatic scene. I want to end this observation, originating with my synchronistic experience earlier this week involving it, by quoting Gorham’s preface to “The Ring Cycle: Young Lovers of the 21st Century”: Wagner’s Ring operas, drawing on Northern European mythology of prehistory age, are built upon the archetypal symbols of the subconscious. Present attention to these greatest musical dramas of all time has shown some tendency toward reducing the symbols to abstractions. This work moves in the opposite direction—toward bringing the symbols into waking consciousness. The basic elements of the events depicted in the Ring operas are repeated in all times under widely varying circumstances. This interpretation is set in the first half of the twenty-first century to permit full freedom in translating the subconscious symbols into their present day counterparts. The concept of “nation” might otherwise be an obstacle. The subconscious, of course, can have no symbol for nation other than a living organism—a giant creature, man-like when considered as something with which communication is possible; dragon-like when looked upon as a thing to be fought. The mythology of the Northern Europeans was concerned with the undesirable aspects of the nations pressing in upon them from the Mediterranean shores. Nations, per se, were to them essentially undesirable, even as they became to the American Indians. The reverse concept, instilled in every school child in the current world, creates an understandable tendency away from letting the subconscious symbols of the Ring operas come up and find their counterparts in waking consciousness. The viewpoint of the prehistory Northern Europeans is more closely approached here by depicting the “nations”, not as the institutions known with reverence, but as police-states controlled by gangsters with a political facade—as might happen after atomic wars had reduced the metropolitan world to a few cities too minor to have been prime targets. Such is the condition set forth in The Curse of the Ring, my narrative interpretation of The Rhinegold, which forms the background for The Ring Cycle. After the first atomic wars two “giants”, two gangster controlled police-states, came into existence—FASOLT (Federated American Society of Latin Territories) and FAFNER, a similar police-state claiming the entire eastern hemisphere. Wotan was the leader of an embryonic organization of free people, dedicated to individual sovereignty and calling themselves sovereigns. He propagandized against the police-states by calling them teras (monsters) instead of nations, calling their unthinking components zombis or segments (sometimes terasegments) instead of citizens, and calling their outcasts which they banished to the wilds, dwarfs, because of their life as segments had given them small distorted souls. Propaganda, or ideological warfare, aimed at keeping the people of the police-states brainwashed and attracting the people still living in the wilds, was a major activity. The best television program each year received an award of the highly coveted Ring (comparable to the movies’ Oscar of the present day). FASOLT and FAFNER constantly competed for a hypothetical supreme Ring which was not actually awarded but was recognized in symbol. FASOLT modelled a television program on Wotan’s daring and exploits as a warrior-leader, and tried to adapt his ideals of freedom as propaganda against its rival FAFNER. Instead of hurting FAFNER, the program, called “Men Like Gods”, had the effect of raising the sovereigns led by Wotan to a world power. Seeing the efficacy of television, Wotan sought a world-wide television program of his own. He also bargained with FAFNER and FASOLT jointly, to build Valhalla, an impressive city for the “Men Like Gods”. His plan was that the sovereigns could use Valhalla as a symbol to hold their own followers and even to attract those who still looked upon them with distaste as the “wilds-people”. Logi, Wotan’s attorney who had defected from FAFNER, worked in good faith on the contract for building Valhalla but the final result was a treaty prohibiting Wotan from further political activity in most of the areas of the world. Now, twenty-five years since the events described in The Curse of the Ring, the only actively functioning “nation” left in the world is the police-state FAFNER. Wotan and the “gods” still have their great city, Valhalla. They also have some planes, including even some bombing planes under command of Donner, but they are bound by treaties not to use the bombers unless FAFNER breaks treaty first. Wagner’s great operas are such consummate works of art that, except for translation of the subconscious archetypes, no significant change is conceivable. This work, of course, is intended only as an examination of one small facet of the finely-cut, many faceted jewel that is Wagner’s great work. —Melvin Gorham *SOVEREIGN PRESS, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:43 | # That’s exactly the kind of comment I’ve come to expect from you, CC. In your “reading” of Natural Duel, Mike Tyson is the winner of a natural duel. Your obtuse reading would have Mike Tyson the winner of a natural duel since humans would be barred from making tools. You scoff at your own being. You are, indeed, the creature Jews wish to see in charge of “white nationalism”: you wouldn’t last a week in a eugenic culture. 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:56 | #
Furthermore, why the need to dress up Natural Duel in all the flowery accoutrements one associates with civilization? Isn’t the psychological need to do that - not finding sufficient appeal in Natural Duel’s brute simplicity - itself a dysgenic state of mind that Natural Duel would eventually weed out of the gene pool? 4
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:57 | # Wagner’s Ring operas are an ancestral message to descendants dwelling in civilization delivered through Wagner’s genius. As a message to civilization’s “citizens” it is predicated on civilization. The only role it might play in a eugenic society would be akin to assembling for war—and its presentation would be very different. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:30 | # You mean the English would no longer be able to enjoy a night at the opera with Greg Johnson? They would surely disapprove! LOL 6
Posted by daniel on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:35 | # Jim is taking the position that individual duels, which would allow combatants to use all the wares and wiles of their abilities in individual combat to the death, are necessary to foster the sovereign and competent men that are distinctly characteristic of European peoples; necessary also for their health and defense. I have known successful individuals who distinctly resemble this kind. I have reservation to this method, which I must also concede, bear on proclivities that have not tended to result in resounding success - with women, for example. If I had to guess, if I were to go along with the duel as sacrosanct, I’d win some and there would be plenty of guys who would put me in the next grave next to Captainchaos. Thus, I concede that some of my skepticism is born of the fact that I am not confident that I could hold up to the abilities of a Bowery, for example. Taking him on would be a drag, indeed. ...but then, why would I want to? Here is where some of my skepticism of Jim’s appeal to the duel begins to look a bit less like mere cowardice. 1) I do not believe in giving the female predilection to incite genetic competition unnecessary due - just the opposite, there should be a platform critical of it. it is already exaggerated and over valued through the disorder of modernity. While I understand Jim is making an important distinction between European man’s way of fighting and Mike Tyson’s, I am not sure that what is better about the European man’s way of life is in all ways captured in that episode. We have our artists too, people who fight in a different ways, not only persons gifted with technology. Hence, Jim may over value the duel because he would be good at it in particular. 2) More, it may represent the liberal element or chaos creating element that women tend to promote as it helps to maintain their position as gate keepers. 3) That may not be so bad, but I believe this disordering has much to do with the predicament our race is in now. We have been prohibited from organizing ourselves as a class (particularly by the US constitution and the exaggeration prohibition of White class organization by Jews) and within the resulting disorder, according to my theory http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111126/women-without-class ; http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111029/kants-moral-system-as-coherence-accountability-agency-and-warrant ; http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111106/leftism-as-a-code-word-part-1-the-white-left * I have re-edited some of these essays, but these are the the originals, flaws and all. the female one up position re emerges with increased significance and with it, the tendency to incite genetic competition - irrespective of White interests per se. That is, they tend to incite mere “objective” competition; or competition handicapping in accordance with PC rules in order to maintain the power of their position as gate keepers, which is stronger in liberal disorder. 4) I have been in the habit of thinking in the opposite way from Jim, in that disorder is of an advantage to Africans at least until such time as they have done really too much damage and destruction to our people. He does have a point, however. That if Whites were allowed to fight with all their abilities matters would be different. 5) But is that really the problem of civilization? Should we make our own life miserable so that it does not attract interlopers and so that they cannot cope? Or are Jews the problem? Or is there a problem in that a puerile female inclinations have been given too much power within disorder and that men have felt compelled to pander to them, to out-liberal one another? 6) Personally, I am all for getting the non-Whites and interlopers out, and their dying doesn’t bother me, but it would take on a different form. A duty of all, from time to time; perhaps always of 18-20 year olds and 68-70 year olds (our aging demographic is a great resource - they have less to lose and much to teach younger folks in these “border camps”).
7) That I tend to prefer for Augustinian devils (natural devils) to do the killing and selecting rather than Manichean devils (devils who change the rules); the duel, though having fair aspects, has got manichean elements as well. Manicheanism is probably one of the things that we rightfully despise about Jews. Thus we’d be be selecting for some traits that would make us more Jewish and others that would make us more African according to female inclination - e.g., more violently aggressive. I believe that competent and sovereign individuals would be selected through Augustinian means as well - without the duel. 8) Plato says that civilization is the gradual victory of persuasion over force. Maybe he was right. I am not averse to civilization. And I am not adverse to fighting or doing whatever it takes to get non-Whites out of our territories. Jim makes the case persuasively enough to cause me hesitation - he may have something, at least for some kinds of Europeans. More, might does make right in a sense; in addition, I don’t see myself persuading females from their predilections any time soon. But, I still think it is important for the foreseeable future to organize ourselves as a class, transcendent of individualism at least for the time being. From there we can expel the traitors and take the fight to the non-Whites. I would be reluctant to reduce European evolution to the duel episode. I like 90% of Jim’s ideas; even the ones that are a bit scientistic do not require much tweaking and he is open to amendment. But the sacrosanct duel is not one of my favorite ideas. Courage requires understanding first. These have been confusing times. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:15 | # I tried to understand this post, but failed. Why is it that so few of the ‘geniuses’ can write clearly? On another note: I like to harass liberals (call it ‘intellectual dueling’, if you must), but in a particular way. It is easy to go on a tirade against them; likewise, to engage in sober and sincere refutations. I follow both methods, as the mood strikes me. But sometimes I prefer the way of discomfiture. That is, I appear to take their concerns at face value, but then introduce apparently supportive examples or arguments they are bound to find ‘inconvenient’. I followed one of Bowery’s links, and eventually ended up at some sniveler’s “sustainability” blog: http://www.sustainablebainbridge.org/blog/?p=139 This post commented on the “altruism” problem within the context of “our needing to move to a more sustainable way of life”. I commented in turn as follows:
8
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:55 | # Daniel and Leon Haller: It should be clear that I am not presenting, yet again, a description of, nor introductory justification for Natural Duel. What I am presenting is merely evidence that while we bicker, Jews are going straight for the jugular with the power of Hollywood behind them. They know what we’re made of and, as much as some of us may fear our ancestral environment, it is nothing compared to the fear Jews, and others who hate us, feel. I’ve found about 5% of the comments regarding Natural Dual here at MR to be edifying critique. I treasure those comments but it just isn’t worth it to try to elicit them. Gorham has offered order: A set of laws that are crystal clear and simple enough that any member of society can fully understand them. Moreover, it deals with Malthusian conflict directly and can make a better claim to being eugenic than any similarly clear and concise proposal I’ve read here or elsewhere. If I don’t give your criticisms their due attention that’s because I see nothing comparable in them that would describe how disputes between individuals would be resolved without simply translating the question into how an individual would resolve a dispute with a corrupt authority. Wish lists and goals, without operational definitions that can inform law, as Gorham has provided, are merely intellectual laziness. 9
Posted by redspaniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:25 | # Try again: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transcendence.html 10
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:36 | # The benefits of collective action are undoubted. I think James is trying to find a way for the benefits, the genes of individualism to be passed on, preserved. I say ‘think’. Im just a lowly bottom feeder in this ecosystem. 11
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:19 | # @Leon I couldn’t make sense of it either to be honest. But I have my deep doubts as to the value of ‘natural duals’ in any mature political philosophy. BTW Leon did you follow up on Sandel or the ethics of immigration (communitarian vs cosmopolitan)? Off topic but here is a snippet on Sandel: “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets” by Michael Sandel http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/184614471X/ Should we pay children to read books or to get good grades? Is it ethical to pay people to test risky new drugs or to donate their organs? What about hiring mercenaries to fight our wars, outsourcing inmates to for-profit prisons, auctioning admission to elite universities, or selling citizenship to immigrants willing to pay? Isn’t there something wrong with a world in which everything and everyone is for sale? In recent decades, market values have crowded out non-market norms in almost every aspect of life-medicine, education, government, law, art, sports, even family life and personal relations. Without quite realizing it, Sandel argues, we have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society. In “What Money Can’t Buy”, Sandel examines one of the biggest ethical questions of our time and provokes a debate that’s been missing in our market-driven age: What is the proper role of markets in a democratic society, and how can we protect the moral and civic goods that markets do not honour and money cannot buy? Market societies – highly individualistic, driven by short-termism (what makes a buck today?), dismissive of collective life and any notion of the common good – totally hollowing out the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’ - yet some people think ever more liberal ‘free-markets’ in all areas of life are the ‘solution’ to the West’s ever expanding and deepening social pathologies? But in the land of the free (market) any criticism of market-exchange as the embodiment the social-order is of course practically verboten. Markets have a place in any society, but not the place. They should never be at the top of our hierarchy of values – something that seems beyond the ‘common sense’ of the average Glenn Beck aficionado. And people wonder why non-Americans find so much that is disagreeable about the USA - culturally, politically, aesthetically? 12
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:05 | # Posted by James Bowery on March 25, 2012, 08:55 PM | # Daniel and Leon Haller: First of all, I do not speak for Leon Haller. I tend to think very differently from him. But that is not the only issue that you are blending. Is the problem Jews or civilization? I believe civilization is not the problem. We can agree the system needs to come down. But is it the system or civilization that is the problem? I believe it is more like the system of Jews than civilization. Women like individualistic and competent men neverthleless. They will select for them. Augustinian devils will weed out the unfit otherwise. It is the Jews and the Jew thinkers who are mismanaging civilization and create the ways in which irresponsible and incompetent people are propped up, propagated and made appealing to women. But may it collapse, if it will. There will always be social rules: some things you can do, some you might, and some you cannot. Be wary of just how weird and gossipy small communities can be; what strange cults of personality can emerge, what disagreeable characteristics come up close and personal - a white, moderately sized city can be a nice thing by comparison. Now then, to my satisfaction, I have answered the first contention. Women tend to like individualistic and competent men and will select for them. Where natural devils do not resolve dispute..hm. You say it is intellectual laziness to not consider the natural duel and other means of resolving disputes. With regard to disputes there have to be some clear rules and options. Adding the strict monogamy category would help - a sacral enshrining of sex so that people can see an option to justice that does not require a fight to the death over a particular woman. However, that would require that the class be circumscribed and its borders protected from non-Whites and in subcategories, reserved for only a particular kind of White. Hence, those somewhat outside that sacral monogamy thing, would still be cooperating in a sense as they would be brothers and sisters, improving things, “for our side”. The White Class, properly understood, it could transcend the jealousy that would provoke such duels, in that regard. As for resolving disputes thereafter, I believe you recommended a jury system, comprised of locals to the concern. How to deal with traitors and liars, well. You’ve got something of a point. One would really really have to be want of a particular locale to undergo a duel to the death. I am satisfied that would make for bad selection in other ways, as I have said. I believe individualism and the will to fight on behalf of one’s people exist in some (me anyway) despite a distaste for the notion of the duel. Hence, a clue may be to look at the genetics, Which genes tend to favor loyalty. Which tend to favor individual competence? Focus on that and force may be less necessary. I’m getting the impression that the duel may be for you the thin queer margin of residual Cartesianism or liberalism - trying to reduce the social to a Cartesian point. If there are no White people left to talk about dispute resolution with, what does it matter? Lets work on separatism from Jews and other non-Whites - I believe the DNA nation coordinating your emphasis on freedom of choice and voting with feet with two other White goods is a start. Once separatism is instantiated, the way of life that they create and what is left to them, will be its own punishment. It will provide not only a leper colony, but a punishment for the traitors - yours and Soren’s thinking has been quite radical there. I was still fantasizing about burnings at the stake….ok ok, I still fantasize about that. But Jim, you have so many great ideas, if I disagree with one of them, I should hope its resolution would not require a duel! 13
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:31 | # daniel writes: You say it is intellectual laziness to not consider the natural duel and other means of resolving disputes. My criticism is more fairly stated: It is intellectual laziness to criticize while failing to provide comparable alternatives that can, themselves, be criticized. More to the point, when discussing “law and order” it isn’t even worth criticizing “alternatives” that are not operationally defined. That is to say, the operation of law is specified in language that is clear enough that there will be little honest dispute over its interpretation. I’ve yet to see a single response to Gorham’s “Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals” that offers any comparable alternative. The few, rare and treasured responses I’ve received here at MR that criticize that codification of law are so valued only because they address specific—explicit—ways in which that code may be “gamed”. While they offered no viable alternative, it did lead me to revise one point of the agreement that appears in bold in the linked version of my revision. Although it is fair of me to indict as “intellectually lazy” critique that fails to provide an alternative of comparably clear operational terms (while accusing the codification presented as promoting “disorder” no less—as you did), it is nevertheless valuable if the critique at least is specific and explicit. A good example of your intellectual laziness in this regard is: “That I tend to prefer for Augustinian devils (natural devils) to do the killing and selecting rather than Manichean devils (devils who change the rules); the duel, though having fair aspects, has got manichean elements as well.” Since a core value of the Natural Duel as presented is to breed out what you refer to as “manichean elements” from the evolutionary stream, your blithe assertion is irresponsible at best. There is no specific—explicit—example of how the presented codification permits or even encourages propagation of “devils who change the rules”. It is a naked argument by assertion that is utterly outrageous to the value system purported, and it is backed up by exactly NOTHING. You have, of course, written far more than that, but the rest of it is either wishful thinking, including wish lists, or such lazy critique. 14
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:53 | # To be clear about the place of Natural Duel in my ideas about social organization: The “vote with your feet” assortation of people does not address Malthusian conflict should it arise. What it does is provide a means for people who are utterly at a loss for why James Bowery is so screwed up in this one area about Natural Duel, to become educated, just as it provides a means of education for people who are utterly at a loss for why anyone could think that Jews are a problem or that race matters, etc. But ultimately territorial allocation becomes an issue. Moreover it is an issue that already presses down upon us in obvious ways given the expanding environmental footprint of technological civilization against a backdrop of a limited and increasingly drained biosphere. If, as E. O. Wilson and other scientists studying eusociality contend, eusocial species tend to be ecologically dominant, then the human-derived eusocial species is an unprecedented threat to Earth’s life and we may very well see the inevitable catastrophe within out lifetimes. Malthusian conflicts will become routine and the “civil” structures upon which we rely to process disputes will be even more coopted than they are now, if even appearances are maintained. I’ve provided a codification for handling those apocalytpic Malthusian conflicts that is my definition of the essence of “whiteness”: That which is fair. So be aware that until I see clear definitions of “whiteness” that include the eugenic maintanence of our innate, bred-in temperamental characteristics of Euroman that makes us stand out from the rest of humanity, I don’t believe the speaker knows what s/he is talking about and there is little of substance to discuss with them. 15
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:11 | # Posted by James Bowery on March 26, 2012, 10:31 AM | # daniel writes: You say it is intellectual laziness to not consider the natural duel and other means of resolving disputes. My criticism is more fairly stated: It is intellectual laziness to criticize while failing to provide comparable alternatives that can, themselves, be criticized. More to the point, when discussing “law and order” it isn’t even worth criticizing “alternatives” that are not operationally defined. That is to say, the operation of law is specified in language that is clear enough that there will be little honest dispute over its interpretation. I’ve yet to see a single response to Gorham’s “Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals” that offers any comparable alternative. Well, first of all, I have not read Gorham’s “Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals”. Frankly, I look upon it as a chore, based on what I see from the post above, but I will do it.
Please be clear on what I am accusing of promoting disorder - viz. the prohibition of classification, and the promotion of individualism above the class (race) interests. These was onset by imbuing the US Constitution with Lockeatine predilections and then perverted by Jewish interests in the extreme. YES THAT PROMOTES DISORDER AND WREAKS HAVOC WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. “That I tend to prefer for Augustinian devils (natural devils) to do the killing and selecting rather than Manichean devils (devils who change the rules); the duel, though having fair aspects, has got manichean elements as well.”
Is it blithe and irresponsible to discuss matters? If I am wrong I can stand corrected. I am still not persuaded that duels are such a great idea. I admit to finding the notion tedious to seriously consider, but I will try. I will read these seven points. There is no specific—explicit—example of how the presented codification permits or even encourages propagation of “devils who change the rules”. It is a naked argument by assertion that is utterly outrageous to the value system purported, and it is backed up by exactly NOTHING. Let me have a look at these seven rules…then I will see if dueling becomes more appealing to me. I suspect it will not, though there may be other considerations there that are worthwhile.
16
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:19 | # Typo These was onset by imbuing the US Constitution
17
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:13 | # Ok, I read it. Jim, really. You have so many great ideas and articles. Essays and thoughts which are excellent. I cannot say the same about this. While I think there is a concern about eusociality and even more so, about the Malthusian effect, I do not believe you have come up with a reasonable way of handling it here.
Aristotle draws a distinction between episteme and its corresponding techne, which apply to hard sciences, as opposed to praxis and phronesis, which apply to social matters - their being more complicated, interactive and agentively responsive, they require more feel and less formulation.
As for the duel to the death stuff, it remains as bizarre as ever. There are other ways to maintain individuality and ward off eusociality - which I can agree would be a concern…though the “shielded” begin to take on aspects of that. But in truth, I don’t want to debate points of the article because I do not think it represents one of your good efforts. We are up against Jews an other non-Whites and there are better ways to handle them than restating the ten commandments and setting out rules for duels. It should not be insulting to you. You have done much excellent work and I have learned a lot from you. Maybe this article is where your feet have been on the ground, or is as I have suggested before the thin queer margin of Cartesianism and search for non social liberalism in Carteisan point, but it doesn’t really work; however, its remedies and correction are really not too hard.
“enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them.” Strategy, in particular, is manichean. 18
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:36 | # But Daniel, are you not, in a sense, duelling with James right now?, Although the duel is intellectual rather than physical, this thread being the battleground with the terms of engagement laid down and adhered to by the wider MR community. 19
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:10 | # Duels like this are fine, but James is proposing the institutionalization of duels to the death. I don’t quite fancy that, no. I don’t think it is a good solution. I don’t think it is likely to gain much support, either. I just don’t agree on this one. But on the whole, I’m a Bowery fan, admirer, something like that. His sense of fairness, among other things, is very inspiring. Debate, discussion, dueling like this of course is worthwhile. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:16 | # daniel writes: “But in truth, I don’t want to debate points of the article because I do not think it represents one of your good efforts. We are up against Jews an other non-Whites and there are better ways to handle them than restating the ten commandments and setting out rules for duels. ” Daniel, if you want to rely on words to resolve disputes (and be a fool to Wagner’s portrayal of Erda) the least you can do is try to recognize that I have already put forth what I believe to be a fair form of debate: When you assert that “there are better ways to handle” the requirements of our situation, and you do not lay them out in equally criticizable form, you are simply not fighting fair with words. Indeed, your desire not to debate coupled with your not only having debated but ongoing presentation of debate after saying you don’t want to is a perfect example of foolishness. Words become weapons when relied upon as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. They cease to be useful to convey thoughts. They reduce man to a preverbal capacity where he is utters grunts and howls that sound like words such as “racist”, “antisemite”, etc. Man becomes, in a word, Jewish. 21
Posted by uKn_Leo on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:19 | # A question then. Duelling to the death as a means of dispute resolution/genetic improvement. I can live with that. But then I am a big guy, strong, athletic. I would always fancy my chances. However, my dispute may be with a, hmmm, lets say weedy guy. But this weedy guy is my intellectual superior. He is an undisputed genius on whom the tribe is reliant and hangs much hope. Morally and intellectually, I would refuse to duel to the death with this individual, and correctly so on many levels. Even if he were the instigator and the rules of the duel produced something of a balancing of the odds. In which case, as the laws demand, my life and any beneficial traits/genes are forfeit. One way or another, ultimately the tribe loses (?). 22
Posted by Scott on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:30 | # The Wiki page on trial by combat is informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat 23
Posted by Scott on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:57 | # It’s not the same kind of duel described here, but it seems that some form of duel persisted until the 19th century. It’s only really been 100 years since it’s been completely eliminated or unknown. It wasn’t too long ago where it was acceptable or not seen as something strange and unusual. These days though it would be seen as unacceptable and strange, especially with the “metrosexualization” or “SWPLization” or whatever you want to call it of the culture that dislikes personal physical violence, courage, honor, etc. 24
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:05 | # daniel writes: “But in truth, I don’t want to debate points of the article because I do not think it represents one of your good efforts. We are up against Jews an other non-Whites and there are better ways to handle them than restating the ten commandments and setting out rules for duels. ”
I don’t know that I have said that I would always resolve disputes with words. That would be putting words in my mouth - however, I would seek to minimize inter-European conflict and maximze cooperation between Europeans; yes, I would try talking first; then if you want to go to juries secondly, fine… But I want to turn the fighting against Jewish antagonism, and non-White incursion.
When you assert that “there are better ways to handle” the requirements of our situation, and you do not lay them out in equally criticizable form, you are simply not fighting fair with words. I have indicated some, you are perhaps not interested to see them: institutionalizing of classification; sex as sacrament (the choice of absolute monogamy institutionalized withing the class); those who are not perfectly monogamous are still functioning on the same side, thus the choice functioning within the class can serve as an option that should allow reasonable people to transcend much of the jealousy which would compel dueling over women in the first place. I have agreed with your notion of jury of peers to negotiate disputes. I have agreed with the obvious statements, prohibitions against: rape, pedophilia, forced child bearing, holding persons captive, conspiring against their individual freedom, killing except in self defense, no forced testimony, I would add innocent until proven guilty; miscegenation means permanent expulsion from the class.
Indeed, your desire not to debate coupled with your not only having debated but ongoing presentation of debate after saying you don’t want to is a perfect example of foolishness. Words become weapons when relied upon as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. They cease to be useful to convey thoughts. They reduce man to a preverbal capacity where he is utters grunts and howls that sound like words such as “racist”, “antisemite”, etc. Man becomes, in a word, Jewish. I don’t know, Jim. I am not trying to use weapons against you. I am perhaps more inclined to verbal and you to mathematical logical, sure; but we both care for Europeans and we both recognize out-groups and traitors. One can indeed, look at what words are doing. For example, according to my definition, a “racist” is someone who classifies people and discriminates accordingly. Anti-racists say that is “bad”, people should not classify. That is why they can say bizarre things like, “it is racist to discriminate against homosexuals” - i.e. you should not classify and discriminate. I say classifying is good: it allows for accountability, ecology and the gradual, unfolding of processes - of historical pattern and within the lifetime - as protected by the class bounds “Anti-semite”: here are many people who are responding with fine rhetoric against that charge as well; the Jews are innocent? There could be no reason to be skeptical of them? I think those would be the difficult arguments to uphold. Anyway, I am not favoring words at the expense of action and organization; and I do demonstrate that. 25
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:19 | # A duty of all, from time to time; perhaps always of 18-20 year olds and 68-70 year old Having people take shifts and or devote certain parts of the life span (in addition to those who specialize in defense) is another practical solution that for some reason you ignore. The elderly are a great resource in our defense 26
Posted by Scott on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:53 | #
How exactly would you weaponize the elderly? 27
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:00 | # If the elderly wanted to remain part of the White class and retain their benefits, they would be required to risk two years of military service; obviously, they would be less physically able to do some things, but they would also be able to do much that is necessary in modern military defense. Most crucially, hey have less to lose. It is better to ask them to risk sacrifice than the young. Nevertheless, it should be an honor to risk two years, and they probably should not be required to risk more, should they not wish. Finally, they would be working with younger conscripts, for arguments sake, say 18-20 year olds, who could partake in their wisdom and undertake physical details their elders could not handle. Both regiments, the young and the old, could be working with career military people and those who contribute in provisional and tangential ways. In a word, the elderly would be obligated to contribute two years service to maintain membership to the White class. However, in truth, it should be an honor for them. If they will not, then they would be expelled from the White class as those who do not care about their progeny.
28
Posted by Scott on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:07 | #
Are market societies really “highly individualistic”? It seems like a society where everyone is dependent on markets for survival and everything is more like the eusociality mentioned above, with everyone a part of a giant hive called “the market”. “Free markets” are portrayed and marketed as being about individualism, but this could be just false marketing designed to appeal to individualistic natures by providing them with an illusion of individualism. A mountain man who survives without markets seems more individualistic than someone in a market society. 29
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:14 | # Daniel, at some point forceful action is called for within the group. What rule governs its emergence outside of the enumerated crimes of rape, murder, etc. other than “laws” upon “laws” upon “laws”? There can be no law abiding citizens where the law is incomprehensible to the citizenry. 30
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:21 | # Scott, you’re absolutely correct. Individualism is founded on freedom. Freedom is founded on independence. Dependence on the market is of a different order than dependence on Nature as the market is dependent on other people as well as upon Nature. It is very much akin to disintermediating one’s relationship to God by dispensing with a priesthood and even congregation. 31
Posted by Scott on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:29 | # Are there any historical examples of forcing the elderly into military service? And to any success? There are lots of historical examples of various forms of male dueling or combat or just fighting or whatever. I think forcing the elderly into military service would be considered more bizarre than bringing back some sort of dueling. Even if real natural duel is a lost art and has been obscured, people instinctively understand it. It’s why boys fight and wrestle, and you have sports and fighting competitions and stuff like that. There’s nothing like this about forcing the elderly into military service. Also, even if it were tried and successfully implemented, it might not be worth it and make things worse. Old people can be a drag, especially for physical activities and things requiring mental sharpness. It might just use up resources and make things more inefficient. It might be better to not use them at all. 32
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:22 | # Are there any historical examples of forcing the elderly into military service? And to any success? Probably. We can ask them.
Yes, a hundred and fifty years ago, Hamilton and Burr etc, etc, ...a hundred and fifty years ago there was also institutionalized slavery. Both dueling and slavery are rightfully bizarre by today’s standards and it is hard to believe such practices existed so recently.
I do not. I don’t agree. Maybe it wouldn’t have to be forced. Maybe it could be some sort of option. It is a preliminary idea and far more worth considering for a race in trouble, that has an aging demographic, than sacrificing the young, or engaging in the foolishness of duels. Even if real natural duel is a lost art and has been obscured, people instinctively understand it. It’s why boys fight and wrestle, and you have sports and fighting competitions and stuff like that. There’s nothing like this about forcing the elderly into military service. You are being contentious. You are just trying to put the worst possible spin on what I say “forcing the elderly into military service - they could go to another country where they do not have to serve, perhaps, or not join our country to begin, etc, etc. ....boys fighting is not the same as duel to the death - which “everybody instinctively understands”? ridiculous.
Daniel, at some point forceful action is called for within the group. What rule governs its emergence outside of the enumerated crimes of rape, murder, etc. other than “laws” upon “laws” upon “laws”? There can be no law abiding citizens where the law is incomprehensible to the citizenry. I don’t know where you see incomprehensible laws. I haven’t fundamentally disagreed with the things you’d consider criminal - I added a few and would a few more. As for who would enforce the laws, I suppose that could be duty shared and delegated by juries as well.
33
Posted by Scott on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:55 | #
I could just as easily suggest that you don’t have a practical purpose in mind since you’re promoting something bizarre like forcing the elderly to serve in the military. I don’t think there’s anything suspicious about thinking that forcing the elderly to serve in the military is bizarre. I think most people would agree. I think most people would think it’s more bizarre than dueling. I don’t think I’ve found “wonderful” things to say about dueling. 34
Posted by daniel on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:19 | # Posted by Scott on March 26, 2012, 05:55 PM | # I could just as easily suggest that you don’t have a practical purpose in mind since you’re promoting something bizarre like forcing the elderly to serve in the military. You could say that but it would be disingenuous, as is your motive. You are probably on who cares about Hitler, Himmler and the Third Reich - anybody who does not trace all ideas and all good to this, is probably on your smear list. I am hashing-out an idea. You are trying to smear it by focusing on my supposedly insisting on forcing the elderly into military service, with no concern that I am highly flexible in terms of how the elderly might be allowed to serve their people. I don’t think there’s anything suspicious about thinking that forcing the elderly to serve in the military is bizarre. I think most people would agree. I think most people would think it’s more bizarre than dueling. This is just your smear thing. The operative phrase is you don’t think. You’ve latched on to what you can to try to sink a loose hypothesis, and smear it before “most people”, trying to make it sound exact and intransigent - I am insistent on “forcing the elderly to serve.” I don’t think I’ve found “wonderful” things to say about dueling. 35
Posted by definitely not uKn_Leo on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:58 | # A compromise: Elderly ‘champions’ are to be selected to fight in the natural duels. 36
Posted by Scott on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:17 | # I don’t have a “smear list” or some “motive” against your ideas about utilizing the elderly. And I don’t know where you’re getting this “Hitler, Himmler and the Third Reich” stuff. I’m not trying to “smear” your ideas about the elderly. I do think there is something “instinctive” about dueling - I don’t know how this is saying something “wonderful” about it - and that this is revealed in how it’s expressed in various forms from boys wrestling and fighting each other to the various variations of dueling that have existed, to modern martial arts and sports competitions, etc. Especially relative to the idea of the elderly being actively involved. I don’t think there is anything really “instinctive” about the elderly participating in this way. Something that may be “instinctive” regarding the elderly is perhaps their position as “sages” or something imparting wisdom to younger generations. 37
Posted by daniel on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:46 | # Scott, I am finding this tedious. I have said many things. Making use of the elderly as fighters, somehow, I don’t know exactly how, was just one idea among many. But you insist on pinning me down to that - that I am necessarily going to force them to serve. More, I did not say that they would be the only fighters. I do submit that taking advantage of their numbers, their wisdom and in particular, the fact that they have less to lose is a worthwhile inquiry (even Bowery agreed with that in personal conversation) - but you don’t even want to allow for the inquiry. In time, we will ask them if they would like to serve their people. Perhaps they will provide the answer since I don’t have the full fledged scientific and historical survey this instant that you insist should be ready to hand. Speaking for my life, I would rather serve at 65 than at 18, but given the circumstances, it would be good to have two terms, one for youths and one for elderly. That would be in addition to career military people and auxiliary personnel. These are just ideas; making it mandatory was just an idea; I believe that some older people would want to serve. I like Bowery, I respect his work absolutely, but I do not care for this piece (below, which I, and probably most people, would call bizarre), which you have been defending, knowingly or not:
All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual. Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours. 38
Posted by Scott on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:36 | # I’m not pinning you down to the “elderly as military corps” idea. That’s why in my previous comment at #37 I used general language like “utilizing the elderly” and “elderly being actively involved”. I never used the word “intuitive”. I said “instinctive”. I haven’t been “defending” the duel thing. I haven’t arrived at any strong conclusion about it. I just haven’t attacked it. 39
Posted by .303 on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:44 | # “How exactly would you weaponize the elderly?” Firearms. 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:56 | #
There are worse things yet, and that is to live in violation of the moral laws written on one’s own heart. Imagine: Your own son (you have no sons, nor will you, but recall I did write “imagine”) has been challenged to single deadly combat by an opponent he cannot possibly better. His life will be forfeit. And on the horrible day that the law decrees this inevitability is to occur, in violation of the protocol that this solemn dance of death - which is intended to paradoxically affirm life - is to have no specators save the ancient trees which can tell no tales, you find yourself wandering as if lead by a force beyond your control into the dark forest as your son is about to have his death blow dealt to him. Now, what pride you take in having ruthlessly bound yourself to the “reasons” (such as they are) for affirming single deadly combat in the first place and the intellectual vanity which serves as a low, humming background noise to your every thought are abandoned as you run towards your son’s assailant screaming, “Nooooooooooo! Don’t kill my son!!!” Your son’s opponent turns on nimble feet and plunges his knife into your chest striking you a mortal blow. Tell me, Bowery, have you then acted as a coward or as a man worthy of the name would as nature would have it? 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:38 | #
There are some notions so vile that a man who is his own man would not deign to piss on them were they on fire. Pull your head out of your patchouli smeared arse - the air is much better up here. Stop being so Beta. 42
Posted by daniel on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:20 | # Hey, Captainchaos, I would do it when I become an elderly person. I am not a hypocrite. As far as being beta, some things one cannot help. And why wouldn’t you serve your people say, when and if you have cancer?Because you want to die in the dignity of rotting away instead of some good? 43
Posted by Scott on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:27 | # What exactly could a terminally ill senior do aside from suicide bombing or something? 44
Posted by Scott on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:57 | # Elderly men have already tended to serve as generals, advisers, leaders, senior scientists and technicians, etc. So the most valuable of the elderly have already tended to be involved and participate and contribute to society. Elderly women are basically useless. If there were a manpower shortage in factories or something, you could use some able-bodied elderly. But without a shortage, adding more people, especially elderly, isn’t always better. It can slow down work and reduce efficiency. And establishing some kind of service could end up just being like a jobs program where you’re trying to find stuff for the elderly to do and that ends up using more resources and time and effort of the rest of society than any benefits accrued from it. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:29 | #
A humble suggestion: you should think twice before including that positively heart-warming sentiment in your Christmas card to granny. Planet Bowery is not a likely tourist destination, and anyone who actually decides to take the plunge of colonization is out of their fucking mind. LOL 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:29 | #
The problem is that it doesn’t. In nature there is no equal opportunity. It is society that conveys equal opportunity, as it does in the Tale of Lin Tse. Lin is dependent upon the sympathy of the Europeans for the plight of the bullied Chinese and upon a code of honour, “If you gentlemen will ensure a fair fight, I will meet this man.” But why should these men ensure a fair fight. Why do they abhor the bullying tactics of a fellow ethnic? Does it not serve their ends to discourage competition for finite ecological resources? Does the Chinese presence not serve to take food off the table of their kin? Why is the law extended to defend foreigners? Why not aid their fellow ethnic in killing Lin and pretending it was a fair fight, the Chinamen had an equal opportunity? Is this not the real state of nature, a world empty of honour and empathy where psychopaths prevail? 47
Posted by daniel on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:58 | # Scott, I am not saying that we should not use practical judgment - that is where the crux of your contention is, in the suggestion that I am not open to practical adjustments with regard to the idea. I do not think my mom could handle a gun very well, no. But she was an army nurse at one time. Maybe Captainchaos’s mom and dad would be good with Katyusha rockets? who knows? 48
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:16 | # On the topic of living longer…for many 65 will be late middle-age! http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/26/third-babies-2012-live-100 As I wrote about previously increased longevity has profound collective and individual consequences. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_birth_of_the_new_man_under_liberalism 49
Posted by Townsend on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:41 | #
I think Bowery acknowledges this when he writes:
50
Posted by daniel on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:54 | # This phenomenon that the game people talk about, where only about 15 percent of the males, “the alphas”, are getting the majority of women (leaving drone betas and omegas), would also seem to correspond to E.O. Wilson’s theory of eusociality that Bowery is addressing. Whatever the example, just because I am unconvinced that dueling is the answer, eusociality is nevertheless an entirely valid concern. E.O. Wilson thought that it had implications for humans as well. Bowery is perhaps on to something in calling attention to his latest book and the article which preceded it. Hamilton had been treating the sociobiology of species in a rather universal way, such that individuals are something like interchangeable parts across species. However, Bowery picked out the significance of this article for White Nationalism, as it underscores the paradigmatic differences between species and suggests parallel differences for non-Whites and Whites (viz. characteristic independence); these would be differences that are qualitative, and not aspects which are interchangeable with other species of people - that is, at least among those receptive to science, it can provide strong and important argumentation against liberalism, universalism, the idea that race does not matter and other notions that have been so destructive to us. Bowery has some important considerations on his mind and has written some great articles. Among several, from his extended version of the prisoner’s dilemma, thoughts on the horizontal transmission of Jews, his thoughts on economics, on distributism and parliamentary takeover to name a few, I have learned important things - very worthwhile. I look forward to hearing him discuss and explore them further. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:34 | # The problem is that eusociality does not function at a species level. It functions on a group, nest or colony level. A hive of bees defends the colony if threatened, however, does not alter its behaviour if the entire species of bees is threatened. Even for Wilson group formation within a species is paramount if eusociality is going to evolve. 52
Posted by daniel on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:14 | # For argument’s sake, let’s consider it voluntary then: Is it more humane to ask 18-20 year olds to volunteer or 63-65 year olds? Pick another two year sequence if you think 63 is too old or too young. 53
Posted by daniel on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:23 | # Adding flexibility: All Persons of The White Class, i.e. of the White Nation, are required to do national service at ages 18-20 and ages 63-65. Those who elect to take on more dangerous service will be in line for greater compensation; particularly their family, if they lose their lives. 54
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:41 | # @ Daniel
‘when they lose their lives’. Fixed that for you.
55
Posted by daniel on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:21 | # Posted by uKn_Leo on March 28, 2012, 06:41 AM | # @ Daniel if they lose their lives. ‘when they lose their lives’. Fixed that for you.
No. They might not lose their lives in service during that 2 year span of service. But if they do, they might be accorded more resource to their family. That is to provide incentive for them to take on riskier details - deportation management and so on..
56
Posted by daniel on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:25 | # Or might opt to take on less risky details during that two years of service - say, oiling Katyusha rockets, but not receive as much compensation for their family. 57
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:56 | # Hehe, just kidding around Daniel. I actually think you’re onto something. I hope when i’m that age I would still be physically/mentally capable of some form of military/national service. I just have this image in my head of a battalion of ol’ codgers storming out of the trenches, rifle in one hand, zimmerframe in the other. ‘Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler…’ 59
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:52 | # Townsend, one thing that people like Desmond Jones miss about the difference between eusocial and individual modes of dispute resolution, is that eusocial conflict is between asexual orgamisms undergoing group selection and individual conflict is between sexual organisms undergoing individual selection. The venacular term for eusocial conflict is “war”. War is a phenomenon peculiar to eusocial organisation such as ants and group-directed human cultures such as civilizations. Peace is a phenomenon that exists when selection is at the individual level. There are a myriad misunderstandings of what I’ve written about natural duel despite the fact that I’ve covered all of them in prior writings. This isn’t simply because people are too lazy to go back and read what I’ve written. There may be no way to communicate the idea simply because none of the readership has ever experienced PEACE. Without the experience of PEACE there is simply no context within which to understand natural duel since natural duel is a phenomenon that emerges only during peace. This definition of “peace” as individual selection and “war” as group selection is alien to our experience, since peace is alien to our experience, but it is crucial. True peace has existed in historic times in only two eras and places to the best of my knowledge: 1) In northern Europe when there was a “no mans land” maintained between civilizations and northern Europeans. 2) In the new world as pioneers settled the frontier. Even the conflicts with the Amerindians, with pioneers periodically being slaughtered, were a state of “peace” comparatively speaking. In our present circumstances, the state of war is more obvious, as the US Government backs up, against the wishes of its citizens, invasion of even our small, out of the way hamlets and towns by people from around the world, including people like Lin Tse. So to answer DJ’s question about why the frontiersmen lumber jacks didn’t just gang up on the little Lin Tse, the answer is that Lin Tse wasn’t part of an invading army, as are Asians today. Therefore individual selection was seen as “fair”. Obviously, since there have been only two exceptional times in human history where we have been at peace, natural duel is out of the question. A post-apocalyptic scenario is another matter entirely, which is why Jews are trying to anticipate it in the myths they promote in our minds. The experience of JudeoChristianity domesticating northern European “pagans”, aka “heathens” aka “forest people”, aka “barbarins”, etc. isn’t something Jews would like to have to replicate. Most of the honest misunderstandings of my position are attributable not understanding that I do not consider natural duel to be viable in any context except such exceptional settings that I designate as “peace”. However, part of the reason I don’t go out of my way to point this out continually is that I do go out of my way to posit a “vote with your feet” assortative migration as a prelude—said assortative migration having as one of its objects the creation of a relative peace—perhaps not as great as that achieved by the no-mans-land protecting northern Europeans from others, but nevertheless something that is far more peaceful than any of us have experienced and probably more peaceful than the vast majority can even imagine given the torture to which we have been subjected by history—especially in recent times of faux “peace”. I’m not ordinarily given to explaining myself or the natural duel to folks who seem predisposed to misunderstand, misconstrue and distort what I say, and have said, about it. However, there are situations, such as the present post about apocalyptic movies, where I do have something new to say. The reason I’m posting this response is that it has occurred to me that W. D. Hamilton’s “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”, being based on Price’s equations—equations that Price derived in his self-sacrificial campaign to identify the theoretic source of war so as to truly put an end to war—may, in combination with E. O. Wilson’s new writings on eusocial human societies, provide the theoretic basis for explaining precisely when individual selection is viable and therefore under what conditions natural duel is viable. But that is for a future post. 60
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:52 | #
It makes no difference to primitive organisms. If something intervenes in the nest or hive, they kill it. If the primitive tribe confronts a foreign intervener, they kill it. It is only with the rise of civilization and the evolution of empathy and subsequent compassion does this change. The lumber jacks did not kill little Lin because they felt/were conditioned to feel compassion. Acts of compassion in wartime are bounteous as well. Thus there is no such thing as a natural duel because it surfaces only from an ocean of compassion and “fairness”. It is a function of civilization. If little Lin washed up on the shore of the Andaman’s, meeting its primitive inhabitants, he would be killed outright w/o consideration for ‘fair’ play, war or no war. Civilization expanded the altruism shown in eusocial conflict far beyond the nest and that is problematic. 61
Posted by Jeff on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:07 | # What about mammals like bears and cats and stuff. They generally fight each other one-on-one. Wouldn’t that be natural duel? I don’t think they do group attacks on each other. 62
Posted by Jeff on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:20 | # I think people read this and think a chaotic “war of all against all” type thing. But maybe there might be less violence with this. Who knows. Dont some people say if everyone was armed people would be more polite to each other and there’d be less violence overall? 63
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:06 | # Little Li arranged for combat between himself and the big obnoxious lout of a lumber jack. The intent was to fight with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules. Is this what bears and cats do? “If you gentlemen will ensure a fair fight, I will meet this man.” Why should these gentlemen ensre a fair fight? Why should they care if little Li lives or dies? It’s like repatriation. The demand for fair and humane treatment grows from civilization. It is not present in primitive man. Cats and bears don’t demand fairness. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_question_of_repatriation 64
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30 | # Everyone knows in their bones that two men ganging up on one man is not a “fair fight”. The reason is that the outcome is obvious: The lone combatant loses and evolution is not furthered at the individual level—only at the group level. This furthers group evolution but group evolution is a fait accompli in the form of multicellular organisms that embody the love-toward-death principle of sexual reproduction. Group organisms are ridiculous travesties compared to sexual individuals. Everyone directly participating in creation embodies the understanding that a “fair fight” is one that furthers creation—and that includes the beasts of the wilderness. Man does not just embody that understanding, he rises to his potential as man by consciously saying “yes” to that understanding—by choosing to work with the long-term direction of creation rather than seeking a return to oneness represented by your “ocean of compassion”. Returning to the “ocean of compassion” is merely a denial of life. It is embodied by eastern philosophy’s rejection of life in the statement “life is suffering”. The response of Eastern philosophy is nirvana or to “blow out the candle” bearing the flame of life. Yes, there is oneness—there is an “ocean of compassion” manifest in triumphant reality of the space-time and matter whirling in inconceivably powerful and vast profusion. Life is built upon that oneness but to try to distort life into a reconstruction of that oneness it is to deny the creation that is life itself. So what is man but the conscious recognition, acceptance and furtherance of all creation upon which he is founded? If you want unity, Desmond Jones, die and you shall have it. 65
Posted by Jeff on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:02 | #
The mammals I’m thinking of are the bears and cats that mostly deal with nature but fight each other one-on-one when they run into each other or during mating season. They’re not really evolved to make and use weapons and stuff. It’s mainly their bodies that are evolved for strength and speed and stuff. It might be a fair fight in their context. If they didn’t do this, they might not exist as we know them. They might be more like pack animals like wolves or something. 66
Posted by daniel on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:39 | # Posted by Jeff on March 28, 2012, 01:20 PM | # I think people read this and think a chaotic “war of all against all” type thing. But maybe there might be less violence with this. Who knows. Dont some people say if everyone was armed people would be more polite to each other and there’d be less violence overall? Having spent some time in Sicily, with the terror of mafia in the background, I had once made a similar argument, that the background terror may have made the day to day far more peaceful than it otherwise would have been. Catania, a city of 500,000. had 86 murders in a year, but they were all mafia on mafia. Baltimore, a city of 500,000. had 364 murders that same year.. In retrospect, people in Sicily there were Not happy about the mafia; and it did Not terrorize the few interracial couples that I saw, to my dismay. They walked with impunity. That does not address the matter of valuing individualism, ultimately, but it does begin to address Jeff’s contention that background terror makes for a more peaceful and fair society in the day to day - I don’t think so. I do not think that these rules in the background will make for a peaceful and honorable society - more like perpetual anxiety.
Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat: .... Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours. Maybe Jim is supposing that in a truly sovereign society people would never challenge anyone to a duel, and certainly not in accordance to the arbitrary terror proposed. I believe that if it would keep Blacks away it is because in some senses Blacks, being of an older, less speculative evolution, make more sense with regard to their survival interests than do Whites. It seems to me that Jim is valuing individualism beyond Whites as they are; Nietzsche believed valuing the over-man was the vehicle to keep us European as opposed to becoming more Chinese. We can think beyond Nietzsche now. I believe Nietzsche was toxic and imbalanced. As a hypothesis, I believe that Jim is working with a false either or - viz. either you will have strong individuals or you will have an assimilated mass. That false either or is the crux of the matter. It probably stems from and feeds back on a Cartesian quest to find a transcendent kiss of the individual outside of the social, beyond nature - an individual’s pure communion with god, the Platonic forms, a fixed Cartesian point. Anything, as it were, to be a sovereign, independent individual. I am satisfied that is nonsense. There may be people who are more or less independent, but there is nobody who transcends the social. That is plain enough. But to try too hard is to broach accountability and therefore irresponsible - it leads to the absurdity of subjecting 40,000 years of careful evolution to the arbitrary whims of a fool who has had a bad day. To try to make oneself as independent an individual as possible is a noble objective. To try to protect that kind from collective action is more than reasonable. But the reasonable course would be a bit of “irony” at the borders and for individual disputes within the group. That is, there would be cooperative efforts to protect the borders of the more individualistic people. The jury could decide disputes between individuals within the group. That is called “paradigmatic conservatism”: individual liberty within the class So, I guess the resolution for Jim’s tastes, if it is to realistically acknowledge interaction and the social rather than take fictional recourse in Platonic forms, it to discern two levels, one more individual, one more social - and recognize that at some point, individual judgment must cooperate with the social. There could be competitions or other means of evaluating who would be very likely to win a duel without taking it to a duel. Women are likely to reward the one likely to win - certainly they would be more likely to breed with the physically fit than not. If the White Class does not arbitrarily and merely try to kill one male who may not be quite as good at one thing, he could be reasonably expected not to seek “jealous revenge”, and the jury would take that fact into account - that his death is not arbitrarily regarded. Rather, Augustinian devils would decide much with regard to whether an individual is good enough or not. If a White man can live to be 100 years old, he has good genotypic strength. Why would we subject him, at age 18 to the arbitrary challenge of another 18 year old? What abilities may he have to share within that one hundred years? He may not be as phenotypically strong as a Black, but the Black’s phenotypic strength may not be the best kind of strength to the survival of successive generations - probably isn’t, as we all know. We are in a situation where we are functioning on a level where the concern is our race and its categories. The rekindling of our best individualistic abilities is a part, not the whole; valuation of The White Class must be valued most. But given that, it is not mutually exclusive to strong and sovereign individuals - hooray for our side. We are rewarded with great women? Hooray for our side. We are not jealous. Sovereign individuals willingly contributing what they can spare to the collective survival. Relatively sovereign individuals are fine, and I don’t see myself or anyone else trying to eliminate them; nevertheless, it is our group interest that we must concentrate on now. And if a pack of wild dogs, in accordance with their nature, could go after that big black animal coming after our women, I say that would be a beautiful thing. 67
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:09 | #
Niggers do not know this of their own accord. To the extent that they do at all, it is only because we have taught them.
There nothing to redeem the exercise of mindless strength and hence it is meaningless (e.g., single deadly combat). When we look up to the celestial firmament what meaning we sense is that mirror reflecting our own strength back to us in the intuitive understanding that when our strength is turned inward for restraint it is in the next moment expressed outwardly as forbearing mercy. We Nordics are the crown of mankind and thus entitled to dominion over the Earth. We are a Master Race, let us take what is due us. 68
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:06 | #
Any “eugenic” effect Bowery anticipates from single deadly combat is purely illusory. After a certain point of the confluence of intellect and physical prowess killing efficiency within the context of single deadly combat will plateau out approaching infinity with the mean genetic profile of our race being pruned more closely to that point of confluence. Winner takes all. There will be fewer genuises that spring from the body of our people. At some level Bowery must know that. It is men such as he who would be the genetic losers in the scenario he lovingly - with so much mystical-sounding babble - presents. But he doesn’t care. Why? Because his own genetic contribution to the next generation will be nil. It is his own rage at this prospect which causes him to (unconsciously?) find cosmic meaning in the destruction of the life-circumstances (the men in Bowery’s intellectual peer group whom he depersonalizes as being Judaized) which brought this about. If he cannot have what he wants, then better the world burn, and the hell with everyone else.
69
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:28 | #
Translation for the peanut gallery: a lose affiliation of linebacker-built, 120 IQ dudes that could be readily exterminated by a standing army. Not exactly a Master Race. No ascent to “Valhalla” in the cards for them, only a short trip to the anthropological graveyard. LOL 70
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:48 | # Fuck, it kills me to say this, but I think “microcommunities” might actually be the best strategy for racial survival if the only other options are “Anglo-Saxonism” and “sovereign individualism”. LOL 71
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:19 | #
But what if they had nukes as a deterrent to invasion? Then wouldn’t the guy amongst their numbers who controlled the nukes basically be de facto dictator thus vitiating “sovereign individualism”? What, you’d have to spread control of the nukes around? Give each “sovereign individual” his own nuke which he could fire off whenever he damn pleased? No…wait, one “sovereign individual” could challenge another to single deady combat, take the dead guy’s nukes and then fire ‘em off! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! What a steaming pile of horseshit “sovereign individualism” is. I feel as if I’ve unitentionally stumbled into racialism’s online Star Trek convention. And not even any complementary Spock ears. 72
Posted by kaatskill on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:36 | # The mafia is not comparable to what’s described in the OP. The mafia is a gang. 73
Posted by kaatskill on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:55 | # If there’s a woman a man is interested in and trying to get, but there’s also another man interested in her, let’s say a rich man or smooth talking “gamer”, why can’t the man just go up to him and fight him and kill him and get the girl? (aside from if he loses the fight) Ultimately the only reason is that there is a group of men like the police that will use force to stop the man. In that case, the rich man or the “gamer” is promoted. But isn’t that just as arbitrary? Who decides? 74
Posted by daniel on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:16 | # <em>Posted by kaatskill on March 29, 2012, 04:36 AM | # The mafia is not comparable to what’s described in the OP. The mafia is a gang.</em> I was drawing on the mafia not to contest individualism, but as an example in skepticism against Jeff’s suggestion that background terror promotes foreground peace. Posted by Jeff on March 28, 2012, 01:20 PM | # I think people read this and think a chaotic “war of all against all” type thing. But maybe there might be less violence with this. Who knows. Dont some people say if everyone was armed people would be more polite to each other and there’d be less violence overall? and then I said.. That does not address the matter of valuing individualism, ultimately, but it does begin to address Jeff’s contention that background terror makes for a more peaceful and fair society in the day to day - I don’t think so. 75
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:00 | # Daniel, if you really cannot see the essential difference between society enforced by covert gang murder and a society enforced by open lawful combat between individuals over publicly declared differences, there is little basis for further dialog with you on this topic. I suggest you move on and leave me to my “fantasies” as there is never going to be any common ground between us on this topic. 76
Posted by daniel on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:07 | # .... or lets draw a distinction between peace and anxiety…a background concern that cannot be significantly ignored as at any time one may be arbitrarily summoned to a duel to the death - the refusal of which means the death penalty. Moreover, as it is a collectively agreed upon decision to sanction these dues to the death, why not just have a collectively agreed upon decision that you are going to protect areas for particular kinds - e.g., here is the state for northern Dutch Individualists and then enforce rules of entry and rules underscoring individual responsibility within? 77
Posted by daniel on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:13 | # Daniel, if you really cannot see the essential difference between society enforced by covert gang murder and a society enforced by open lawful combat between individuals over publicly declared differences, there is little basis for further dialog with you on this topic. I suggest you move on and leave me to my “fantasies” as there is never going to be any common ground between us on this topic. James, the mafia was perhaps an example I should not have drawn upon as it was bound to evoke this response - “I just cannot understand these deep thoughts of rule governed individual duels the death”; I meant not to address individual, “lawful” combat with that example, but rather the notion that background anxiety necessarily creates peace. Of course I can see the difference so please don’t pretend that I cannot. At bottom, however, both ideas (mafia and mandatory duels to the death) stink. See the post above. 78
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:36 | # Jeff never spoke of “anxiety”. He was putting forth an hypothesis in human ecology with which I agree that does not depend on there existing “anxiety”—but merely a mutual respect for the enforcement powers of members of society. In ignoring your emphasis on “anxiety”, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you had properly read what Jeff had stated and what was essentially implied by the codification I’ve cited. As for mockery of “deep thoughts” I could go after you on your invocation of Plato, Aristotle, Manichaeus, Augustine, Descartes, etc. as though they were terms just as accessible to the common man as are the terms of the Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals. Certainly, there are many varied hypotheses as to what sort of evolutionary direction would be obtained by that codification, and it is clear that our interpretation of that codification is different as well as the hypothesized evolutionary direction. This is precisely the kind of thing that is futile to settle with argumentation and must be settled by appeal to natural law in experimentation. Descartes didn’t invent natural law nor experimentation. 79
Posted by daniel on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:28 | # Jeff never spoke of “anxiety”. Something in the background keeps the “peace” - whether everyone being armed, everyone having recourse to declare a duel to the death. That would cause me anxiety as I speculate that it would others.. Sorry for being so presumptuous.
Aha, it is respect. Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat: .... Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours. For any reason. That is pretty arbitrary. I do not think it is too far fetched to say that would cause anxiety. Thank you.
I was not mocking you. But when it is suggested that I cannot understand the difference between mafia as a collective organization and these individual duels to the death, it is a suggestion that I am not something enough, deep enough, whatever - i.e., I was defending myself. as are the terms of the Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals. The rules in these first few point are fine. The stuff about dueling is ...well, I tried to explain. It seems that I could make 9.5 good points out of ten. People will tend to focus on what they can dispute - you see! He said the mafia is just like an individual! Of course I did not, but what can I do but roll my eyes and try again. Certainly, there are many varied hypotheses as to what sort of evolutionary direction would be obtained by that codification, and it is clear that our interpretation of that codification is different as well as the hypothesized evolutionary direction. This is precisely the kind of thing that is futile to settle with argumentation and must be settled by appeal to natural law in experimentation. Descartes didn’t invent natural law nor experimentation. I didn’t say that he did. Science does some things well and in other cases it is impractical. When and what to test requires practical judgment. If I had to guess, you’ve got an understandable concern on your mind of how to deal with traitors - you would have more intimate acquaintance with them than me, having been somewhat more mainstream American than I. You want to find ways to discourage people from doing that again. Do I ever relate to that. Personally, I really could not stand living in the U.S. While there, blowing up the world and burnings at the stake were more appealing options…I still fancy the old public burning at the stake..but.. getting out of America helped a lot It was also healing to hear you and Soren talk about how expulsion of traitors and non-Whites to non-White lands as a real punishment….the idea has begun to grow.. Knowing an all White place, as I do now…it makes all the difference. And the banishment of traitors to a non-White place would be punishment indeed. Man to talk to you and hear you agree that what we’ve been through is like the black death, worse! I don’t want to lose friends like that, who can understand how bad this has been for what is precious to us. Let’s send them to Liberia.. Let’s get armed 63-65 year old Whites, backed up with Katyushas (joking, it means, whatever it takes) to do it…
80
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:13 | # Excerpt from cited codification: “Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat: ....” Daniel comments: ”’For any reason’. That is pretty arbitrary. I do not think it is too far fetched to say that would cause anxiety.” My hypothesis is that it would quickly result in those experiencing such anxiety to either seek a sovereign to shield them from challenges, or to acquire enough sensitivity to those around them that they could socialize without anxiety*. Since sovereigns would be required to take the latter route—to greater sensitivity—it seems to me a superior basis upon which to found society’s enforcement powers. Of course, some sovereigns would have over-confidence in their sensitivity and would suffer the consequences, but their anxiety would be limited to the point in time when the offended objected—usually verbally—and the verbal objection would suffice to elicit an apology at which point the apology would usually be accepted and the anxiety disappear due to the appearance of a more stable society. *Of course, there is always the option of tucking tail and running to more familiar territory—like back to wherever the “immigrant” came from. 81
Posted by daniel on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:56 | # My hypothesis is that it would quickly result in those experiencing such anxiety to either seek a sovereign to shield them from challenges, or to acquire enough sensitivity to those around them that they could socialize without anxiety*. Since sovereigns would be required to take the latter route—to greater sensitivity—it seems to me a superior basis upon which to found society’s enforcement powers.
However, I think the anxiety of severe penalties short of death (banishment, for example) would be sufficient to invoke this kind of sensitivity training. And these tests and punishments, short of death, could sort out and select for better individuals as they would have breeding advantages. There would be incentives and disincentives. Some things do deserve the death penalty - true. However, I have experienced enough crazy men and women, enough fallibility in individuals, to not put faith in this rule of one person’s prerogative over a life and death decision. 82
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:12 | # daniel writes: However, I have experienced enough crazy men and women, enough fallibility in individuals, to not put faith in this rule of one person’s prerogative over a life and death decision. Amen to that! Just look at the people who have been in charge of our governments for lo these many centuries as they grind our gene-pool into mush with their wars! Of course, that wasn’t usually the decision of one person. 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:23 | #
LOL http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/03/29/isnt-this-just-lovely/ 84
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:17 | # Those blacks know in their bones that their gang attack on that lone white man was unfair. They hate “fair”—especially when it is descriptive of skin or hair color. 85
Posted by Atheism 101 on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:30 | # Life’s not fair and is markedly less so with respect to skin and hair with every passing generation. 86
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:52 | # Was the fight between Squatter and the ant fair? (A funny story about Squatter and his battle against his enemy in Bahrain). 87
Posted by Roland on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:16 | # The familiar refrain here touches upon, 1) Bowery’s supposed inability to comprehend the necessity of adopting collective and authoritarian measures to protect the white race, 2) the merely aesthetic basis for endorsing the Natural Duel, and 3) the irrationality or the inefficiency of the duel. I have my own issues with the Valorian interpretation of NE culture, but the confusions surrounding these three issues ought to be addressed first. There are fair points surrounding #1, though I think proponents of this critique overstate their case. From what I’ve gleaned from Bowery’s posts and Human History by Valorian Press, the Valorian model is not just a representation of pre-Christian Northern European culture, but also of virtually all known forms of Indo-European “barbarism.” While these cultures have been wildly successful insantiations of radical individualism, once they entrenched themselves through conquest, the unique genetic heritage carried by the cultures was almost immediately diluted by interbreeding with the conquered stock. If I recall correctly, Human History mentions the aryan conquest of the indigenous “pelasgian” stock in Greece but fails to mention the eventual weakening of the former by the latter through interbreeding. Furthermore, according to John Day’s discussion of Indo-European anthropology, the same can be said of the early Romans and the conquerors of India, with the Indian caste system being a belated prophylactic imposed by a dwindling and beleaguered ruling elite that had originally ruled by virtue of its superior culture of radical individualism. With this in mind, a case for some type of eusocial stratification could easily be made - assuming, however, that the the dysgenic breeding mentioned above was not caused by a failure to adhere to the older culture of egalitarian aristocracy/radical individualism. The shaft graves of early IE conquerors suggest that IE aristocrats were not averse to adopting cultural traits from the local subjugated population. Concerning #2, the assertion that any mention of dueling is eo ipso a flight of romanticism betrays ignorance of the foundations of Anglo-Nordic culture, the fundamentally rational nature of both the Natural Duel and many of the highly stylized and “unnatural” forms of mutual combat, and the pernicious and dysgenic effect of the putatively Christian-moral restrictions imposed on the Indo-European adversarial system of conflict resolution. The current Anglo-American system of Common Law is predicated on a private adversarial system of conflict resolution rooted in the Indo-European system described by Bowery, albeit one stripped of its “feudal” or violent foundations and perverted by Roman formalism and the absolutism of the Constitution. Moreover, the rationality and the collective wealth-maximizing benefits of the older, violent forms of dispute resolution continue to be articulated in the economic and legal literature to this day. And while something like the einvigi or Natural Duel is likely out of the question for moderns, other forms of violent conflict resolution continue to be (occasionally) promoted in the legal literature in America, because dueling and trial by combat have never been outlawed by the Supreme Court. Finally, while the Valorian principle that the priestly caste always finds itself embattled by a system of violent conflict resolution is overstated (the Icelandic sagas mention Christian fighters, and the clergy used champions in England for centuries), the insight continues to be borne out even today. For example, since the New Deal, progressive liberals have argued that even the present adversarial system, narrowly tailored to the singular epistemological goal of ascertaining the “truth”, is nevertheless too similar to “trial by battle” and that, in consequence, the entire system of individual conflict resolution should be supplanted by a system in which a (priestly) caste of judges monitors civil society and imposes justice from above. Their worry is that the “truth” is obfuscated by the adversarial system, which pits unequal individuals with unequal capacities and resources against each other. Such a top-down judicial system would be the final victory of words/memes/slave morals over individual sovereignty. Concerning #3, from a libertarian standpoint, the principle obstacle posed by mutual combat as a form of conflict resolution is the potential for its abuse as a rent-seeking institution, as freeholders in the Icelandic free state unfortunately discovered when refugees of the Malthusian collapse in Norway arrived on the shores of Iceland. Stronger and superior warriors could make claims to privately-held land as a pretext for defeating the weaker current owner and taking his land. But this is only a drawback if you hold libertarian (Austrian) “rights” to be sacrosanct. 88
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:06 | # Thanks for a thoughtful and informed response, Rolland. Regarding #1, I must repeat an excerpt from <a >my earlier comment regarding war and peace</a>, which will be the subject of a future post here at MR for reasons I gave in that comment:
I know I have explained to some of the commentariate, in detail, the important distinction between “the state of war” and “the state of nature”—and its necessary suppression of natural duel during war, so it is particularly frustrating to see them proceed as though I never mentioned such a thing. This is also where I have a respectful bone to pick with Andrew Fraser: The sacrifice of the sacred king—hence kingship itself—is legitimate during a legitimate war campaign—the object of which is of course to “slay the dragon” (the malign group entity) so that there can be a return of the state of peace. Such a state of war is declared when a leader expresses the objective clearly and succinctly so as to attract free men to join him in what effectively amounts to an oath. In that state they are BOUND until their oath is fulfilled. <a >My interview with Fraser</a> had to dwell on sacral kingship for precisely this reason: I was attempting to elicit from Fraser his understanding of the origin of kingship as a legitimate social role for military campaigns to slay dragons—and the sacrifice of the sacral king as a voluntary commitment by a military leader, accepted under certain conditions, to join the fate of those that had been killed in battle—quite probably in military defeat. Perpetuating the declared state of war—during which the king is not subject to natural duel because of the bondage into which freemen placed themselves—is a corruption of kingship. It is in perpetual kingship that a legitimate military campaign is transformed into an attack on free people by rendering the king immune to natural duel from “the commoners”. This is where Fraser fails to understand the United States and George Washington in particular: The natural frontier of the new world—a state of nature—presented us with the emergence of a state of peace barred only by the corrupt monarchs of the old world. It is instructive that George Washington had to go out of his way to prohibit dueling between his officers for his victory. And although he rejected attempts to cast him in the mold of a king or emperor, he did not do much to reinstate natural duel. This I attribute not only to the long bondage in which our people had been steeped, George Washington included, but to the fact that dueling itself had been subject to corruption by the JudeoChristian authorities who attempted to domesticate it with unnatural rules—rendering the entire concept of “dueling” dysgenic by connotation, hence “foolish”. We suffer from that JudeoChristian corruption to this day and in this very forum. 89
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:56 | # “Hobbes has said that laws without the sword are but bits of parchment . . . but without the laws the sword is but a piece of Iron.” - Coleridge 90
Posted by Roland on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:30 | # James, I noticed your statement about #1 but forgot to mention it in my previous post. I know, for example, that, while the Norman regime was by no means a perfect example of the Valorian ideal, under Norman common law, petitions for trial by battle and private prosecution were always suspended while a freeman or lord was away fighting off invaders or for new land appropriations. This reinforces your point that, rather than institutionalizing war, mutual combat is reserved for peaceful spaces. I haven’t read or heard your interview with Fraser, but I agree that a distinction needs to be made between mere kingship in the sense of the primus inter pares that prevailed among ancient Indo-Europeans, pagan Northern Europeans, and the early leaders of feudal Europe, and the absolute monarchy that emerged after the Peace of Westphalia. The permanent suspension of the normal or peaceful situation by an absolute government is the cornerstone of all post-Westphalian government, and, in my opinion, precludes a perfect environment of individual selection. One of the problems I see with the Valorian interpretation of history (and maybe you can clear this up for me) derives from this same issue. In my opinion, the “peace” and individual selection model fails to account for the sovereign individual’s desire for honor and prestige that historically led to the formation of aggressive war bands among Indo-Europeans (the Argives/Dorians/Sea Peoples/Germans in antiquity and the Vikings in the middle ages) and the expansion of power through elite dominance of weaker civilizations. These invasions ordinarily involved collective violation of the sovereignty of weaker, out-group individuals (e.g., the indigenous inhabitants of pre-Indo-European Greece mentioned in Human History, or the aboriginals in the Americas that you mentioned above). The Valorian Society glosses this fact with the old sophism that the conquered populations were slaves by nature who explicitly chose to live as slaves despite the overtures of the Indo-European conquerors. This strikes me as rather implausible given the military sophistication and wealth of many of the non-Indo-European civilizations that were conquered by Indo-Europeans during the Bronze Age and the medieval period. 91
Posted by Roland on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:54 | # Edit: James, I missed the edit you added on George Washington in the New World. While I agree that the Natural Duel is the most eugenic, I believe that the stylized and unnatural variations of the duel like the Icelandic Holmgang, English Trial by Battle, and the duel forms codified in John Wilson’s 1838 Code of Honor serve at least culturally, if not biologically, useful purposes. Their function was admittedly to reinforce and support communal homogeneity, but with respect to an individual’s sovereignty within that community. In addition to being deeply imbued with spiritual significance (which reinforced community membership), the unnatural forms of dueling in many cases promoted economic efficiency in the distribution of land and enforced the character traits necessary for maintaining individualism. For example, Wilson’s code heavily emphasizes dishonesty as a legitimate basis for challenging an individual to a duel. Perhaps the reduced mortality associated with the unnatural dueling forms (1 in 14 Southern duelists died) corresponds to the less important functions that they regulated. 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:19 | # “the necessity of adopting collective and authoritarian measures to protect the white race,” The point is missed. Collective and authoritarian measures are adopted to protect the ‘natural’ dual/sovereign individualism without which such could not exist. It is a difference of degree not kind. Notably, trial by combat was absent in Anglo-Saxon England, being imposed by the Normans after the conquest. “The current Anglo-American system of Common Law is predicated on a private adversarial system of conflict resolution rooted in the Indo-European system described by Bowery” It’s not. It’s founded upon English radicalism, a palingenetic ideology that eschewed the legitimacy of the Norman Conquest and particularly emphasized that property accrued from labour not battle. “Stronger and superior warriors could make claims to privately-held land as a pretext for defeating the weaker current owner and taking his land.” It is an issue if ‘fairness’ is in the bones. What is nothing other than the theft of land and murder of the owner is legitimized/rationalized by a sovereign authority establishing rules for such conduct. Again, sovereign individualism is a function of a submitting to a collective authority. It does not see the light of day without it. It is not natural in any sense of the word. It is a means for conflict resolution that is the outgrowth of a powerful civilizing central force. The ‘natural’ state of conflict resolution is that seen in the above video. Fairness requires a body of civilized men to ensure it. 93
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:32 | # The imposition of a system of apartheid and wergild by the conquering Anglo-Saxon elite proved much more eugenic than the Norman system of trial by battle. 94
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:00 | # If it’s law as politics you could all start with Schmitt. “The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Enemy-Intellectual-Portrait-Carl-Schmitt/dp/185984359X But really the notion that pairwise ‘natural duals’ is conceptually, let alone practically, relevant to modern political issues is frankly too bizarre for words. BTW can I bring a Heckler & Koch MP5 to my duel? 95
Posted by Roland on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:01 | # Desmond, trial by battle is a specific legal subset of judicial combat, which is, in turn, a subset of mutual combat. While there is no evidence in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles of trial by battle being used for land disputes before the Norman Conquest, there is ample evidence of widespread judicial combat among the Angles and Saxons in third-party accounts; it would therefore be strange if the Angle and Saxon mercenaries mysteriously left their traditions on the continent when they settled the island. Further, the mythical King Arthur was said to have challenged Flollo to “go to the Island” for combat, and there are accounts asserting that the English king Edward challenged the Danish king Cnut to a duel. So when it is claimed that trial by battle was unknown in England before the conquest by legal scholars, they can only be referring to a specific type of judicial combat.
Your analysis of the common law is a gross reduction and misses the point: that the common law is predicated on a private, adversarial system of conflict resolution that has its roots in the general adversarial nature of Northern European conflict resolution. A private, adversarial system of conflict resolution necessarily promotes and preserves individual sovereignty, even if it is progressively limited through state centralization and moral activism. As I mentioned before, some progressives even regard the current non-violent mode of common law litigation as a distateful form of trial by battle.
I don’t see how it is necessarily unfair for someone to lose their land because they can’t adequately defend it in mutual combat (assuming that they are capable functioning in combat). Rent seeking by career duelers is more of a social and economic than a moral problem because it allows profits to accrue to economically non-productive actors. But even this analysis is relative to a given economic situation. For example, where landowners are responsible for the defense of a region and population, it is economically more efficient for superior warriors to be seised as tenants; and this was the original logic behind the Norman system of deciding land disputes.
This is completely at odds with everything I’ve read on the culture of proto-civilized “barbarians”. The main collective institutions within these cultures were the war bands or war parties, which were structured around voluntary oaths. Genuine oaths presuppose individual authority against any collectivity. If you’re arguing that some unifying metaphysical or moral belief system is required for a “sovereign individualism” to flourish, I agree. But this is quite distinct from “submitting to a collective authority” in the sense of a centralized collective body that wields force against individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/ 96
Posted by Roland on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:13 | # @Graham It’s interesting that you mention Schmitt. For a Christian, he was surprisingly partial to dueling. One of his theses is that the model of war established in classical European international law was based on dueling, and that this system of managing conflict coincided with the most peaceful era in the history of international law. 97
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:31 | # Roland,
Unless, of course, they were unique among Germanic tribes. There is no evidence of trial by battle being present in Anglo-Saxon law codes; there is only anecdotal evidence of which some is clearly myth. The point missed is that this system of conflict resolution, i.e trial by battle, is a progressive limit imposed by state actors. Where the state doesn’t consider itself responsible for mediating this kind of dispute what do we have? Vendettas or blood feuds.
It’s a large assumption. no? Apparently there were cases of women involved in trial by combat. In such a case, apparently, the man is required to stand in a hole dug waist deep. Why would that be the case if it was considered a fair fight?
Again, this system of conflict resolution, i.e trial by battle, is a progressive limit imposed by state actors, written in to some Germanic law codes. Who enforces the law? 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:51 | # I am not opposed to the restoration of voluntary dueling as a method of dispute resolution, but I doubt it is very practicable for most of society. Few people want duels; few see them as “fair”. This should be obvious. I’m also unsure whether the reintroduction of even limited dueling would have racially positive effects. On the one hand, it might encourage young white men to be more focused on developing their combat skills, which could be useful at some point (collectively, as well as individually). On the other hand, it might over-encourage individualist thinking at the expense of what is really needed among whites, which is much stronger group identification and attachment. It’s apparent Mr. Bowery has put considerable theoretical effort into his vision. But I think it is, at best, an unimportant distraction from our larger racial concerns, which are chiefly, to end immigration, and develop white racial/nationalist sentiment to ensure our group’s survival in an increasingly, psychologically (even if someday no longer politically) borderless world. We must reestablish along racial lines, and then re-moralize, the friend/enemy distinction, per Schmitt. 99
Posted by Roland on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:13 | # Desmond, I’ll emphasize again that there were judicial and extra-judicial duels. Judicial duels would show up in the written and oral law, but extra-judicial duels would not. For example, while the holmgang was codified in law, the einvigi (a mode of combat that approximates the Natural Duel in many respects) was not. From what I’ve read, it appears that extra-judicial duels were fought in England, on islands, before the Conquest.
You continue to assume the existence of a “state” when there only existed jurisdictions, i.e., regions over which private individuals had dominion. Scholarly consensus maintains that the late dark ages and the early medieval period, even under the nascent “empires”, closely approximated an anarchy characterized by overlapping and competing jurisdictions between different individuals and communities. When an individual attempts to prosecute another under a foreign jurisdiction, it is natural to assume that the individual would prefer to test the stretch of the jurisdiction by force than voluntarily assent to the power of the “court.” This is likely one of the ancient rationales behind mutual combat. Subsequent codifications of judicial combat, similar to king Gundobald’s declaration in the 6th century, were closer to the sort of state-based enforcement you imagine, but only by virtue of the reach of the king’s private jurisdiction. But even assuming that your explanation of the origin of judicial combat is correct, the einvigi (which has congnates in Old English), could not, by definition, be a state-created institution precisely because it was unregulated, even by the gods. The only prerequisites for the einvigi were two men and the absence of a meddling state or religious institution. Leon, The pistol duel likely contributed to the superiority of the gentry in the American South because it was a mechanism for the private regulation of honor. Contrast this with the passive-aggressive shaming rituals that prevail today and I think it might change your opinion on whether it could be a useful institution, even if it is only used to enforce the homogeneity necessary to congeal whites into a Schmittian political group. 100
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:14 | # Rolland wrote:
If one looks at the Valorian account of the Vikings—the most recent history of such invasions—it differs in that the dynamic appears to be 2 phases: 1) Total warfare against the JudeoChristian dragon—warfare led by various “primus inter pares” to use your apt descriptive, 2) Corruption of those leaders with “the two sided coin” of confused JudeoChristian theocracy, with which the dragon “assimilated” their homelands. It may be that the other invasions were of a similar character. The theory of dragon creation is that an ill-adapted priestly class learns to manipulate the minds of the people around them so that they are then useful to gang up on individuals who might challenge a priest. After enough generations, you have bred the population for manipulation of others or lack of perception or both. In other words, the invasions didn’t perceive there to exist individuals in the lands being invaded—merely dragons. Of course, as you come into day-to-day close contact with the dragons you start to see its segments in the form of human individuals—however degraded and “dwarfed” they might be as individuals. In that situation the mind manipulation comes to the fore and the invaders are assimilated. Another dimension to this is that as genes for individual integrity are absorbed by the dragons, the dragons are infused with integrity, and you get phenomena like Alexander the Great. <a >W D Hamilton wrote of this phenomenon in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”</a>, although he doesn’t directly refer to genes for integrity per se:
101
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:04 | # Rolland asks:
The 7 points do not preclude an individual, from being simultaneously shielded by more than one sovereign. Such an individual, even a weak individual certain to be killed in natural duel by a sovereign, can hardly be called a “slave” to a sovereign since the sovereign cannot, simultaneously, remove his consent to shield that individual and post a challenge to natural duel against that individual. He must first “go through” the other sovereign in order to reach the weak individual. Moreover, this may bear little real relationship to the IE conquerors. The accurate perception of dwarfs—the liberated segments of “conquered” dragons—is that they are already worse than enslaved because their bonds are not open and honest—but of a type invisible even to the dwarfs themselves. Particularly as IE warriors are assimilated by the mind manipulation of the “conquered” priests, they might become the front men of the priestly class for the enslavement of the “liberated” dwarfs: Merely a more powerful enforcement gang for the priests. 102
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:13 | # Leon Haller writes:
No its not. The psychological warfare waged against our young men requires them to stand idly by as their women watch invading men parade, immune to challenge, before both the local men and women. This has—particularly in combination with the lifting of oppression of women—a devastating effect on the relation between the sexes. We must make clear in the minds of young men that the primordial contract between civilization and men is that men give up their right to natural duel challenges against “immigrant” men in exchange for civilization’s enforcement of immigration laws that retain relatively natural gene flows across boundaries. Only then can those young men understand the violence going on between their minds and bodies and start to retrieve a sense of their manhood and morale in facing and “slaying the dragon”.
103
Posted by adv on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:22 | # The duel figures prominently in Stanley Kubrick’s movie Barry Lyndon, based on the novel by Thackeray. Though it’s duel by pistols, as was generally the custom over the past few centuries. The film opens with a duel with Barry’s father, who is shot and killed in it. This leaves Barry impoverished and prevents him from marrying one of his cousins that he had fallen in love with. The cousin instead chooses a wealthy English officer. So Barry challenges the English officer to a duel. However, the cousin’s family doesn’t want to risk the death of the officer because of the wealth that would come to them as a result of the marriage. So they and the officer stage a fake duel by loading Barry’s pistol with fake bullets. Barry thinks he has won the duel and has fatally shot the officer. The family then tricks him and says that since he has shot and killed an English officer, he must escape and go on the lam. Barry leaves home and escapes and this sets the stage for the rest of the film. The film ends with a duel between Barry and his step-son that leaves Barry crippled and disgraced and forced to leave England for good.
104
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:41 | # Roland,
Semantics. Call it a central authority or dominion actors if it is more palatable. However, the einvigi still leaves an unresolved issue. Why? Why move to an extra-judicial duel, and then consequently a judicious duel, if the support of a strong extended kinship is available? Even if it is simply a reminder by the Lord or King of a “community conscience” (which raises other issues discussed earlier regarding little Li or black gang violence), as Drew Fraser describes it in the ‘Wasp Question’, it is different only in degree not in kind. The difference between holmgang and einvigi is a matter of degree not kind. It also raises the issue of why? Why move from extra-judicial to judicial? Further appeal to the growing power of a central authority that encodes and enforces the community conscience? Fairness? Again, orders of magnitude different in degree but not in kind. Thus the Natural Duel/sovereign individualism cannot exist without a sta…sorry…central authority because the default position, absent a central authority, is a reliance upon extended kinship. Without which, as we see in the video above, leaves the young white man extremely vulnerable. 105
Posted by Bart on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 01:14 | # The example of black gang violence is a red herring. Whites and blacks are separated by thousands of years of evolution and have different natural inclinations. Obviously if you were trying to get people with little or no natural inclination towards natural duel/sovereign individualism to fight natural duels, you would need some sort of central authority to force them to. But such a central authority wouldn’t be necessary among people with a natural inclination towards natural duel/sovereign individualism in their own environment among themselves. 106
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:27 | # Desmond Jones, Have you read Fraser’s The WASP Question? is it highbrow, cutting edge, or otherwise worth purchasing? 107
Posted by daniel on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:53 | # It would seem to me that the duel archetype would place the borders of the race inside the head rather than at the borders as agreed upon by consensus - borders therefore enforceable by consensus. The central question that Bowery is asking is how to keep that consensus from being corrupted? Bowery hypothesizes that the duel would naturally discourage the entry of collective types of people into the class and the corruption of those already within. His essential concern is to preserve realms of northern European individualistic types.
108
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:49 | # Bart asserts: Obviously if you were trying to get people with little or no natural inclination towards natural duel/sovereign individualism to fight natural duels, you would need some sort of central authority to force them to. That is addressed in point 6.5 of the 7 points. Enforcement is as per points 3, 4, 5 and 7. None of it is centralized. Indeed, I have set forth a simplified “one point of agreement between individuals” for those who can’t be bothered to read a body of law consisting of one page*: “Any man who refuses a challenge to natural duel may be killed in any manner by anyone or any group at any time after said refusal.” Yes, that leaves out some important points, and the resulting minarchy is too minimal—so it will be attacked, perhaps even by you, but look at the situation you have presented us with here: You can’t be bothered to read. I don’t usually respond to such obvious misreadings of the 7 points but since this one is critical enough that I have singled it out as the center-piece, I felt it important to reiterate the point. *The US Constitution isn’t much longer than that and only one in a hundred bothers to read it either—and of those maybe one in 10 understands what they have read well enough to see the current US government is lawless. 109
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:32 | #
This is clearly psychotic. Yet and still, perhaps all the commentariat needs is for the man who champions single deadly combat, Bowery himself, to provide a stout and inspiring example to merit their allegiance to his Grand Idea; and what should that example consist of? The next time Bowery sees a Nordic woman in public with a negro he should challenge that nigger to single deadly combat. First, let’s all see how that works out. 110
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:33 | # Leon, Fraser’s book was very enjoyable! If buying is not an option, possibly a local library will order it. 111
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:45 | # It’s a rare day when I agree with Captainchaos but on this he is right. Natural duels as a vivifying civilizational deus ex machina is so bizarre that no serious person can hold these view. It fails any test of judgemental rationality. But good luck getting Mr. & Mrs. Average on board the loony train - as CC suggests perhaps a real-life demonstration is in order? The video put up on an appropriate site? Western societies have moved on - they are unlikely to go back to such social mechanisms. Americans do have the most odd ideas at times. 112
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:05 | # Desmond, Thank you for the response and laugh. I assume you were joking re a local library ordering it .. let’s see, what else should I ask them for? Lynn, Global Race Differences in Intelligence Faye, Archaeofuturism O’Meara, Towards the White Republic Jensen, The g Factor I could list a lot of others, but I have most of them already. I’m not even in Orange Country anymore. If you knew where I am you’d chuckle at the idea of a local library order. Anyway, my real query was whether the Fraser book was written at a sophisticated level, like MacDonald’s or Lynn’s stuff. If so, I’ll purchase it. LH 113
Posted by kenn on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:05 | #
Is it the “natural” aspect that is problematic? Or duels altogether? What about pistols? Dueling with pistols was pretty popular in the 19th century. Although pistols back then weren’t as accurate as they are today, so there was more skill and chance involved than there would be using pistols today. 114
Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:34 | # Perhaps I will be charged with not having read the material carefully enough. However, I wonder where is the innocent until proven guilty aspect in this notion of dueling where anybody can charge one to a duel for any reason and they are sentenced to death if they will not accept the duel? Or is innocent until proven guilty seen as unimportant? 115
Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:37 | # any sovereign can charge any sovereign, that is.. but it does not change the question - where is innocent until proven guilty? 116
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:01 | # I had presented the read-comprehension-challenged Bart with the over-simplified one-liner:
And, of course, anticipating the tiresome sophomoric blather, I said:
...and of course, the other folks who can’t be bothered to read one page of plainly written text. My comment “perhaps even by you” was my backhanded way of stating what is now obvious: My detractors don’t care a whit about genuine critique since not only can they not read a single page of text with anything approaching high school graduate comprehension, they cannot read a one-liner oversimplification without skipping over the next sentence stating that it is over-simplified. Disgusting. And, yes, daniel, you did fail to read. 117
Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:21 | # The thing is James, when you are presenting such a ridiculous idea as challenges to duels to the death that cannot be refused, it is really hard to get motivated to get into the details. The premise is absurd from the start. Moreover, I disagree with you. I did read and understand your text. The attention that I am giving to this matter is for your deserved merit as a thinker demonstrated in other articles and discussions. It is you, James, who is not reading well: I did not say that you had not considered innocent until proven guilty, I asked where it was in relation to this text and for an elaboration of your thoughts on it? You go rather quickly to ad hominem attacks and I am a bit surprised by that. Although I really don’t blame you for being insecure about this idea. It might have some merit if you were to take the duel to gradations of non-lethal consequences. 118
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:26 | # Daniel, how can you have possibly missed all 4 mentions of the word “trial” in the 7 points? I mean even though you have contempt for the idea, if you are going to bother to comment on it the least you can do is read a single page of text. 119
Posted by daniel on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:48 | # Ok yes, I do see your mention of trial in points three and four - it does make a difference. I stand somewhat corrected. But then, that was what I was asking for - where is the mention of innocent until proven guilty? You answer the question in your last post. I also think you answered why it is that I did not taken it to heart - because I have a natural aversion to this means of resolving conflict, as apparently most do and will. I am a bit more open to your concept now. I am not against the death penalty, but in this means of execution, wouldn’t the innocent accuser be putting himself at unnecessary risk in duels? Finally, I am still not averse to civilization. I am not yet convinced of your conception of civilization nor of the idea that it is the problem per se. 121
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:19 | # Coming soon to US politics…. Sir what is you key policy? Lethal pairwise duels to the death for conflict resolution you say? Hmm… I can just see this idea at work on the Isles with two bampots firing sub-machine guns at each other down Sauchiehall Street, locked in a fight to the death as onlookers dodge stray bullets. I can’t understand why anyone could possibly object. Glasgow is a crazy city at times but not that crazy. Meanwhile back on planet Earth… As for duels in the 19th century can anyone provide figures from any European nation – was it 10000’s, 1000’s, 100’s, less than 100 per annum? I’d suggest it was quite a rare phenomenon. 123
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:32 | # @Les Aye maybe…or maybe I’m normal, moderately sane, non-psychopath that doesn’t think a near Hobbesian war of all against all in the form of ‘to the death’ duels is a good basis for a moderately civil society? Questions, questions…they never end. BTW are tanks allowed in these duels? RPGs? A small nuclear device perhaps? But Les why don’t you test these ideas in downtown Detroit or an equally suitable venue? Video it for us all please. 124
Posted by Les on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:05 | # What exactly would life be like for the “shielded”? Would it just be normal? Is the only difference that they can’t fight in the duels and vote? Otherwise would they lead just normal lives? Could they participate in the killing of a sovereign that refused a challenge? It says in the Seven Points document that the sovereign can unilaterally remove the “shield” and that if the sovereign dies the “shield” is removed. What if the person wants to remain “shielded”? Would they have to find a “shield”, otherwise be sovereign or leave the community? 125
Posted by Les on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:20 | # What would the population distribution of sovereigns and shielded look like? Would this be like an aristocratic society where a majority of people are shielded by a minority of aristocrats who have a monopoly on votes and violence? With the aristocrats selected for natural duel as opposed to money making or political skill? 126
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:02 | # Les, life for the shielded would be very much like those who were not the head of a household on the frontier West, except that there would be less intra-racial* violence. They could participate in sanctioned gang violence in enforcement of the law. As I pointed out earlier, there is nothing prohibiting a shielded individual from accepting more than one shield at a time—let alone finding another shield. If none were willing to shield them, then they become sovereign. If they find that unacceptable then their only choice is to leave the community. *Understand that, unlike others, I have defined the “white” race. They may reject my definition but since they offer nothing comparably clear, they are also well advised to cease putting forth their ideas as “pro-white”. 127
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:05 | # Bowery, I think perhaps you fail to see that even if your interloctors came to an understanding of sorvereign individualism that is as complete and nuanced as your own it is not then necessarily true that they would endorse sovereign individualism. We do not regard our ensconsement in civilization per se as a cage - however gilded - as you clearly do on a deep and personal level. Yes, certainly, the turn our civilization has taken in this last century is catatrophically lamentable. If we did not agree with you on that we would not gather here. That said, if I were fully convinced that your dire prognostications were indeed inevitable in the near terms of, say, a few thousand years, I would throw my chips in with you, however much it would pain me to do it. But seriously, now, you do not actually claim, nor can you prove, that our mental and sexual individuation will be reduced to a nullity - something on a par with honey bees - within a time-frame that we should reasonably be expected to care. What, in forty thousand years this could be expected to happen? Who fucking cares? Within that time our race may well have speciated anew anyway (yeah, with civilization speeding up our evolution). 128
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:40 | # Creativity is, I am comfortable assuming, well correlated with psychological individuality at the genetic level. All that is needed for the latter to sustain unto the generations is to see the former rewarded with an increase in reproductive fitness. I am confident it is within our power to calibrate civilization to that end. And if we can do that - we can - on what reasonable basis should we be expected to dispense with civilization? 129
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:20 | # These enchantments are medicinal, they sober and heal us. These are plain pleasures, kindly and native to us. We come to our own, and make friends with matter, which the ambitious chatter of the schools would persuade us to despise. We never can part with it; the mind loves its old home; as water to our thirst, so is the rock, the ground, to our eyes, and hands, and feet. It is firm water; it is cold flame: what health, what affinity! Ever an old friend, ever like a dear friend and brother, when we chat affectedly with strangers, comes in this honest face, and takes a grave liberty with us, and shames us out of our nonsense. Cities give not the human senses room enough. We go out daily and nightly to feed the eyes on the horizon, and require so much scope, just as we need water for our bath. There are all degrees of natural influence, from these quarantine powers of nature, up to her dearest and gravest ministrations to the imagination and the soul. There is the bucket of cold water from the spring, the wood-fire to which the chilled traveller rushes for safety,—and there is the sublime moral of autumn and of noon. We nestle in nature, and draw our living as parasites from her roots and grains, and we receive glances from the heavenly bodies, which call us to solitude, and foretell the remotest future. The blue zenith is the point in which romance and reality meet. I think, if we should be rapt away into all that we dream of heaven, and should converse with Gabriel and Uriel, the upper sky would be all that would remain of our furniture. It seems as if the day was not wholly profane, in which we have given heed to some natural object. The fall of snowflakes in a still air, preserving to each crystal its perfect form; the blowing of sleet over a wide sheet of water, and over plains, the waving rye-field, the mimic waving of acres of houstonia, whose innumerable florets whiten and ripple before the eye; the reflections of trees and flowers in glassy lakes; the musical steaming odorous south wind, which converts all trees to wind-harps; the crackling and spurting of hemlock in the flames; or of pine logs, which yield glory to the walls and faces in the sitting-room,—these are the music and pictures of the most ancient religion. My house stands in low land, with limited outlook, and on the skirt of the village. But I go with my friend to the shore of our little river, and with one stroke of the paddle, I leave the village politics and personalities behind, and pass into a delicate realm of sunset and moonlight, too bright almost for spotted man to enter without novitiate and probation. We penetrate bodily this incredible beauty: we dip our hands in this painted element: our eyes are bathed in these lights and forms. A holiday, a villeggiatura, a royal revel, the proudest, most heart-rejoicing festival that valor and beauty, power and taste, ever decked and enjoyed, establishes itself on the instant. These sunset clouds, these delicately emerging stars, with their private and ineffable glances, signify it and proffer it. I am taught the poorness of our invention, the ugliness of towns and palaces. Art and luxury have early learned that they must work as enhancement and sequel to this original beauty. I am over instructed for my return. Henceforth I shall be hard to please. I cannot go back to toys. I am grown expensive and sophisticated. I can no longer live without elegance… Excerpted from “Nature” by Ralph Waldo Emerson Emerson doesn’t touch on unperverted sex as it grows out of such peace—sex that is as unknown to civilized man as his own heart and yet none who have tasted even part of Emerson’s emotion can be satisfied with anything less than that peace. This lack of satiation is torture only because it makes us more fully aware of our abject state: The state of perpetual war. 130
Posted by lucas on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:46 | #
If it doesn’t matter what happens in the future, then why be opposed to the natural duel? Why care about it at all? Why care if other people are engaging in natural duel, especially in the future after one’s mortal life? What’s the basis for opposition here other than one of personal preference or utilitarianism during one’s own mortal lifespan? 131
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:17 | #
If Carter Strange challenged the gang leader to a duel, as little Li did with the lumberjacks, do you honestly believe the request would be accepted? Why the compassion for little Li and not Carter? Why was no empathy shown towards Carter, if “Those blacks know in their bones that their gang attack on that lone white man was unfair.”? How can it be if even bears and cats understand the principle of a “fair” fight? Under the current circumstances, what value is the natural duel? 132
Posted by lucas on Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:04 | #
If one doesn’t care what eventually happens, on what basis does one support or oppose the natural duel, or anything else? Is it just utilitarianism? Post a comment:
Next entry: More thread wars
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsJames Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) |
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:34 | #
Wouldn’t it be more “Natural” just to bash your opponents head in with a rock?