Panic in Pittsburgh: G20 Thread

Posted by James Bowery on September 24, 2009, 08:08 PM | #

National Anarchism:

The founder of the Bay Area National Anarchists, Andrew Yeoman, offers a succinct definition: “National Anarchism is a political tendency that allows different communities to form a political structure according to their own values.”

They should consider Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society:

Secession is necessary to free society.  Free society starts with mutual consent.  Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. “Freedom From” compliments “Freedom To”.

Secession is necessary to true social science:  We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments.  This is true of all science.  Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions.  In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results.  We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence.

In a free scientific society, an individual is subject to treatment only after giving informed consent.

These two pillars of social good—truth and freedom—stand upon the foundation of secession.

Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights—the sine qua non of “liberal democracy”—must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.

Of course, establishing “uniform law” is the whole purpose of the G20, so they are inimical to truth and freedom.

Posted by ANTON on September 25, 2009, 01:12 PM | #

Anarchists are worthless and anarchism is a worthless philosophy. I’m not sure if you were suggesting we should admire these clown; extermination is a better solution.

Advocates of white rights have to drop the silly bullshit like anarchy and libertarianism ASAP, or we’ll get nowhere.

Posted by Drifter on September 25, 2009, 01:21 PM | #

There is a social morality side, but there is also a strategic economic and military side.

If North America and Western Europe were to balkanize as such into best fitting value system clusters, that would then leave the East under larger uniform structures.

People on the other side of the planet, specifically Russia, China and India would need to follow suit so that no major power remains as we understand them now.

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2009, 02:33 PM | #

Why did Rome never conquer the Germanics?

Posted by Euro on September 25, 2009, 03:20 PM | #

Why did Rome never conquer the Germanics?

She did,partially.The Rhineland,Austria,and parts of Bavaria were Roman.Marcus Aurelius even contemplated exterminating the Germans.

I’d like to pose a similar question.Why were the “Germanics” always poking their noses in Roman affairs? Didn’t they realize their blonde hair was imperiled as a result?

Posted by Euro on September 25, 2009, 03:28 PM | #

By the way James,I understand that Geocities is closing shop in October.Will your material there be exported elsewhere?

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2009, 03:31 PM | #

It was not my intent to push “Nordicist” buttons—merely to point out that the “larger uniform structures” are not the be all and end all of territorial control.  Indeed, the US Federal government and the Soviet Union are strong evidence that in the present context, they are a genocidal threat to their own people.

Posted by Euro on September 25, 2009, 04:05 PM | #

It was not my intent to push “Nordicist” buttons—merely to point out that the “larger uniform structures” are not the be all and end all of territorial control.  Indeed, the US Federal government and the Soviet Union are strong evidence that in the present context, they are a genocidal threat to their own people.

Think nothing of it.Recall however that the Roman empire lasted a respectable amount of time,in contrast to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R..And she contributed mightily to the foundations of her lesser successor states.

What of Geocities?

Posted by JLH on September 25, 2009, 04:10 PM | #

“Why were the “Germanics” always poking their noses in Roman affairs?”

Weren’t they trying to gain entrance into the empire in search of sanctuary against encroachment by the Huns?

Posted by Andrew on September 25, 2009, 05:41 PM | #

“Why did Rome never conquer the Germanics? “

That a funny Question, even 30 years after the collapse of the Roman Empire, everyone had gone back to barbarianism; until - 800 years later when Charlemagne initiated his ideology and regain some of the Hellenistic principles of learning;
The one sentence that has been spoken by the idiot sphere; and that was the call for a “Central World Government”. It has been mentioned in Our Australian Parliament, and is on record;  The U N looters are about it ; Leftoid psychopath Occupy controlling institutions
So the Idiots who have fabricated this whole economic looters fest want central control of the world;
Well stuff me ; WW2 was about the same thing was it not?

I would have thought ther was not much left to control - They have pritty well stuffed everything.
I am not waiting 800 years for a return to civility , when this empire collapses .
I am going to watch it from the side line.

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2009, 05:46 PM | #

Geocities held a relatively small amount of my material and although I tried to organize it according to what I think most important as a personal site, I seriously doubt it will be missed.  I may repost, and have already reposted, some of that material other places but I have no particular plans.

Posted by Frank on September 25, 2009, 05:53 PM | #

James,

you ought to repost in the forums here. OD would love to host a backup copy of your ideas too.

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2009, 06:52 PM | #

Andrew writes: That a funny Question, even 30 years after the collapse of the Roman Empire, everyone had gone back to barbarianism; until - 800 years later when Charlemagne initiated his ideology and regain some of the Hellenistic principles of learning

That is strongly reminiscent of something W.D.Hamilton said in Innate Social Aptitudes of Man:

The incursions of barbaric pastoralists seem to do civilizations less harm in the long run than one might expect. Indeed, two dark ages and renaissances in Europe suggest a recurring pattern in which a renaissance follows an incursion by about 800 years. It may even be suggested that certain genes or traditions of pastoralists revitalize the conquered people with an ingredient of progress which tends to die out in a large panmictic population for the reasons already discussed. I have in mind altruism itself, or the part of the altruism which is perhaps better described as self-sacrificial daring. By the time of the renaissance it may be that the mixing of genes and cultures (or of cultures alone if these are the only vehicles, which I doubt) has continued long enough to bring the old mercantile thoughtfulness and the infused daring into conjunction in a few individuals who then find courage for all kinds of inventive innovation against the resistance of established thought and practice. Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).

Hamilton, W.D. (1975), Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics, in R. Fox (ed.), Biosocial Anthropology, Malaby Press, London, 133-53.

I would contend that this pattern holds not only for the Dorian+Greeks and Goths+Romans but also for the Vikings+Christians.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 25, 2009, 10:53 PM | #

“30 years after the collapse of the Roman Empire, everyone had gone back to barbarianism; until - 800 years later when Charlemagne initiated his ideology”  (—Andrew)

Forgive me, shouldn’t “800 years” there be 350 years? 

As for James Bowery’s theory (the only reason I bring this up):  if Rome fell in 450, 800 years later, or 1250, did mark the start of a cultural upsurge in Europe, no, not on the scale of the Renaissance, but sort of a “pre-Renaissance.”

Posted by Frank on September 25, 2009, 11:02 PM | #

Why were the “Germanics” always poking their noses in Roman affairs? Didn’t they realize their blonde hair was imperiled as a result?

There’s nothing magical about Germans. They were weak to greed like everyone else… I say that as a somewhat “Nordicist”.

Posted by James Bowery on September 26, 2009, 12:01 AM | #

Fred writes: ... Rome fell in 450, 800 years later, or 1250, did mark the start of a cultural upsurge in Europe, no, not on the scale of the Renaissance, but sort of a “pre-Renaissance.”

True, but it can hardly be denied that Charlemagne represented some kind of renaissance in western Europe—perhaps more accurately described as “south western” Europe.  Its hard to place it precisely with Charlemagne though since Charles Martel was clearly an earlier and key figure.

Perhaps we’re missing something that occurred around the time of Christ in Western Europe that involved battles between the Frisians et al with Caesar’s campaigns there.

Fortunately, we don’t need to engage in too much ad hocery with respect to W.D. Hamilton’s speculation since the genetic data are helping to clear up a lot of obscure history.

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on September 26, 2009, 12:58 AM | #

True, but it can hardly be denied that Charlemagne represented some kind of renaissance in western Europe

The first centralized state on an imperial scale since Rome fell.  The holy wars to convert Germans and Wends to Christianity.  Also, laying the ground for the stable aristocratic feudalism of the High Middle Ages.  He even tried to re-unite his lands with the Eastern Roman Empire.

Perhaps you could say that Charlemagne’s accomplishments stood as the foundation upon which the European high culture to come was built.

Posted by fellist on September 26, 2009, 06:21 AM | #

It can be frustrating being a Bowery reader. See the way he slipped that ‘over-extended phenotype’ idea into the comments section of a CvH thread a few weeks back… we want an essay, James!

I daresay the blogspot stuff slipped by many of us unnoticed:

http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/

Posted by Andrew on September 26, 2009, 06:42 AM | #

You are right Fred , but the intent was to describe it in brief , But it had taken many years for anything slightly resembling civilization ; and the dates you wrote were the periods of Crusading ;  against that other Ideological Occupation – Mohammad’s .
Spain was under Islamic Occupation for 800 odd years – Give or takes a few - and if it takes 800 years to remove an Occupying force, well we are totally stuffed.
I think in humour, it was said that the German Pagans represented a fears and ferocious Adversarial worriers to Charlemagne; and he had known it. –
I have read Sir Arthur Keith’s publications, I will look up some of the other references given, and they may be published in EBook- on Guttenberg.  I will have a look and see what I can find.

Posted by videos on the riots in Pittsburgh on September 26, 2009, 10:58 AM | #

www.infowars.com
www.prisonplanet.com
www.prisonplanet.tv

have videos on the riots in Pittsburgh…

Posted by Euro on September 28, 2009, 01:52 PM | #

“Weren’t they trying to gain entrance into the empire in search of sanctuary against encroachment by the Huns?”

Partially,yes.But they clashed with Rome long before.( Marius crushed the Cimbri and Teutones a century before Christ.) They needed sanctuary from the Huns because they failed to elaborate their own state institutions that could have obviated recourse to Roman protection.And finally they liked Rome.It’s much easier to poach on an already established civilization than building your own from the ground up.

I like and admire “Nordics.” It’s too bad a truly strong modus vivendi has not been established between them and the Latin world.And that’s not entirely the “Nordics’” fault.

Posted by John on September 29, 2009, 08:23 AM | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8