Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:10 | #

Over the last four nights Channel 4 has run a series titled Merseyside Detectives, documenting the police investigation into two murders in Liverpool in the summer of 2022:

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/merseyside-detectives/on-demand/73040-004

One of these was the murder was of Ashley Dale, a 28 year-old council worker whose boyfriend was targeted by local criminals.  The other was 9 year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel, living just a few streets away from Ashley and killed in her own home by a marauding drug-dealer attempting to assassinate a feuding rival dealer.  The interesting thing, a propos James’ post, is that in both cases the gunmen were living by an honour code of sorts ... a code of local status, a code of silence, a code of revenge.  Yet they and their fellow criminals were so pathologically focussed on themselves, they turned the streets where they lived into a war-zone.  They vitiated all value from everyone and everything else, even childhood.  “The future don’t matter to us.  Nothing matters now; not the land, not the money, not the woman.  I came here to see you ...”

There is something in the masculine principle, something holistic and vivifying, which is above the duel.  Why, because duelling is built on reduction, on a grim, vitiating in-discrimination.  This other is something sublime which, perhaps, we men receive from our mothers, and which makes us not just protectors and defenders in some constant battle for survival, but believers in the existence of good, in trust and respect, and ultimately in the value of kin.  It is, I think, our starting point from which matters might fall away and lead us into the duel.

If the models for Frank and Harmonica had been Roosevelt and Machiavelli I wonder what that famously postmodern scene would have looked like.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:02 | #

Well , GW , re your speculative final sentence , the film , aside from the low - budget hireling actors. had zero American creative input . 

The writers’ Italian cultural experience informed this ” great American movie.”

Doubtless ,  Machiavelli would have received admiring authorial treatment from his ethnic - cognate writers while the diseased , malevolent , war - mongering creature , Roosevelt , may not have fared quite as well.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 23 Aug 2024 23:16 | #

@ 2

Thank you for your gay perspective.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 24 Aug 2024 00:15 | #

#3 You really are a comedic sketch. 

  Homosexuality was and is so rife among Christian clergymen that it might as well have been invented for Church leaders whom effeminate , ovine mattoids such as yourself , with weak powers of reason atrophied by peace and love garbage , so faithfully follow.

Although homosexuality was not uncommon among ancient Greeks , it was never legalised , and the wise Ancients would have roared with laughter at your Transsexual Christian Clergy conducting Gay marriages in otherwise empty churches .

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 24 Aug 2024 06:34 | #

@4
HAHAHAHA!

Nice try, dipshit!

The truth is Christianity condemns homosexual behavior. It’s clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Plainly stated, that condemnation of homosexual behavior is one big aspect of Christianity that makes you anti-Christ imps so mouth-foaming mad. The morality of it tortures you.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 25 Aug 2024 01:43 | #

Old Jesus , whose precepts you doubtless obeyed slavishly when you sold your few paltry worldly goods and ” followed Him” as theologically required , said precisely nothing about Homosexuality .

If I am mistaken , please quote the Chapters and Verses where the heretical Jewish Shaman even mentions that perversion , far less condemns it.

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 25 Aug 2024 10:21 | #

@6

Al, you’ve demonstrated over and over again what an ignoramus you are, yet you continue on. But, of course, I’m not at all surprised given that strange deviant mindset of yours.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:51 | #

GW writes: the gunmen were living by an honour code of sorts

Man the moral animal cannot escape honor because it is moral territory.  You might try to escaped the mere word “honor” by re-defining it, but it keeps rearing its masculine head no matter what “mothers” may try to instill in their sons.

GW writes: There is something in the masculine principle, something holistic and vivifying, which is above the duel.

There is something in the masculine principle of Man, the moral animal, something holistic and vivifying, which is above the duel:

Morality.

The animal—the healthy sexual being of the male animal—is territorial. That healthy sexual being of the male animal demands duel over resources including, of course, territory.

You can’t escape that, GW.  You just can’t.  You can deny it all you want but you will find yourself ever “drawn back in” as the Godfather lamented.

No, what you are looking for resides in the moral capacity of Man, not in the abjuration of duel nor in degrading the word “honor” to suit your purposes.

GW writes: This other is something sublime which, perhaps, we men receive from our mothers, and which makes us not just protectors and defenders in some constant battle for survival, but believers in the existence of good, in trust and respect, and ultimately in the value of kin.

Compared to fathers with sons, mothers, even with sons vote overwhelmingly for open borders.  You are looking in the wrong place for ground to stand on.

Here’s the ground mothers provide their sons:

DNA forged on the anvil of 600 million years of male animal duel.

This is no small contribution as foundation for The Moral Animal.  That said, fathers are primarily responsible for the transition from mere animal, with the propensity to duel, to The Moral Animal, in which that animal heritage is not “sublimated” so much as understood as the ground of Being.

PS: My use of the clip that “post modern” movie (GW originally provided me) might be best understood as an archetype of the travesty Hollywood makes of Man the moral animal—of the very word “honor”—in the sense that the final duel is nonsense.  The same nonsense as the rules of Holmgang as portrayed by a JudeoChristian monk are nonsense—and everything derived from it including code duello.  Every culture has its form of “duel” because every culture has some way of directing evolution because culture is artificial selection.  You can’t escape responsibility for the fact that your culture selects genes, hence creates a accountability to future generations.

The only question is which artificial selection regime has the form of duel that is most resonant with that which created you and with the potential of future generations?  I contend that 600M years trumps 6M years of gang warfare among the human lineage let alone 6k years of civilization.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 31 Aug 2024 20:36 | #

Well, James, if reduction ... the argument that a man of honour is less than an whole man ... can’t be made into a common base of judgement, let’s try something else.  What object or entity do you hold to be ultimate value on the soil?  I would say, the shared adaptive traits of its native people.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 01 Sep 2024 16:40 | #

GW writes: What object or entity do you hold to be ultimate value on the soil?  I would say, the shared adaptive traits of its native people.

If I’m reading you correctly—the simple expression “shared adaptive traits of its native people” greatly reduces the argument surface:

Exactly so!

This is why I go on and on about the degraded forms of “duel” that give it the same bad name as degraded forms of “honor”.

People who cannot recognize culture is artificial selection cannot be considered remotely eligible for the estate of Man The Moral Animal.  Why?  Because they deny some combination of:

* genes matter
* we are responsible for culture
* culture influences the direction of genetic evolution

All of these are not only obviously true but are of central interest—and this is even before we can begin to think of “adaptive traits of its native people”.

There is an emerging billionaire class—among them Elon Musk and the e/acc crowd—that is increasingly promoting the idea that all three propositions are true but then assert that culturing “merit” is “ultimate value” but distinct from “the soil”.  Their definition of “merit” boils down to who can make the most money given some minor tweaks in politics to reduce the malign effects of feminine empathy for “victims”.  This, they claim, is “unfair” in the sense that it is anti-meritocratic.  Of course the feminine claims that it is only “fair” that “victim groups” receive “protected status”.  The word “fair” is just a surrogate for “honor” in the sense that “fair contest” is “honorable” as opposed to “unfair contest”, etc.

These are the words, the definitions over which people fight in the culture wars.

So let’s get back to the soil in this culture war:

What does it mean to “the British sense of fair play” to express in relation to the “soil” aka Nature and Nature’s God as arbitrar of evolutionary direction?

I would contend that the British Isles are, somewhat like Iceland, just an extreme refugium for individuality born of tens of thousands of years of coevolution with wolves replacing humans in hunting packs so that individual men become the primary locus of sovereignty.

This, I understand you to believe, to be a degradation of the wolf.  If that is so, what then is it when men are domesticated by other men?

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:13 | #

#10   Your final question is an interesting one , JB , and intelligent observers of the antebellum South’s social history might find an answer there .

By that I mean , the translation of Black savages from Africa into biped domestic livestock represented a process akin to that which you mentioned in your question.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Sep 2024 23:39 | #

Blacks, being well adapted to gang warfare in Africa—as a 6M year old heritage going back to CHLCA—are already domesticted to that form of social organization.  The myth of white men getting off slave ships in Africa to chase down and cast nets over hapless blacks is, in fact, evidence the antebellum South—hence the US—was being domesticated by the Africans that sold other Africans into slavery to be sold, like crack cocaine, to the Antebellum south.  This gets into The Genetic Omnidominance Hypothesis (2000) as well as Race, Gender and the Frontier (1992).

This is why I’ve suggested that, as part of a general jujitsu move against mass immigration, all those fine young military aged male be armed to the teeth and sent back to their home countries to impose Militia.Money—or we’ll be forced to ask:

What would Vlad do?

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:10 | #

@ 12

The myth of white men getting off slave ships in Africa to chase down and cast nets over hapless blacks is, in fact, evidence the antebellum South—hence the US—was being domesticated by the Africans that sold other Africans into slavery to be sold, like crack cocaine, to the Antebellum south.

IOWs, Negros weren’t stolen by white men from Africa. In actuality, a good case can be made that those negroes were rescued from Africa by white men.

As it turns out, it was an incredibly racially suicidal move on the white man’s part. No demonstratable capability of foresight by those blockheads? Apparently so.