Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 03:55 | #

If “duel” means any form of contest between two parties, then we can discuss mass warfare as a duel between two bodies politic, can we not?

And by so doing, increase the risk of granting advantage to Judah, which is better suited to collectivist endeavors?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 04:50 | #

The notion that our Being does not incorporate the valor of single combat in under natural conditions as an essential property of manhood—but is merely an invention of the movie “Dune” (as has actually been posited in these discussions)—evidences against our pursuit of Being as a remedy for Jewish domination of our myths.

To be fair to me I didn’t actually mean to suggest that the writer of Dune originated the idea, but rather, that you watched the movie—in which the idea of single combat plays a central role—one too many times.

I wanted a definition of “natural” conditions from you. After all, one man’s natural is another’s artifice as one man’s plain is another’s ornate.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 05:36 | #

danielj writes: “I wanted a definition of “natural” conditions from you. After all, one man’s natural is another’s artifice as one man’s plain is another’s ornate.”

It’s all relative Albert.  Have you considered a career at the University of Chicago?

Really, if you can’t be bothered with basic concepts like evolutionary psychology, then what in the hell are you doing around MR?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:12 | #

Really, if you can’t be bothered with basic concepts like evolutionary psychology, then what in the hell are you doing around MR?

You know… Some of us don’t believe in macroevolution or that the hunter-gatherer conditions you describe as “natural” ever prevailed. They certainly didn’t prevail for a significant enough time to impact our DNA.

Also, if what makes it “natural” is just time, the conditions that prevail now will eventually be “natural.”

If you don’t understand clear logical concepts and how to properly define your terms, what the hell are you doing hanging around MR?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:14 | #

It’s all relative Albert.  Have you considered a career at the University of Chicago?

I hope everybody appreciates the irony of this accusation.

Posted by pug on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:53 | #

James,

I favour a culture that allows for duelling rather than not, though I do not find it awfully eugenic and think it an impossibility given the rise of the managerial elite and modern media—the genie is out of the bottle, and, jews or no jews, those entities will self-interestedly militate against it and reverse it over time. In no way was there a connotation play involved when I rejected it as a civilisational means of dispute resolution. How can you simultaneously acknowledge extended phenotypism and not see the folly? Is this prescription at least due after homogeneity is won?

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:28 | #

Dueling.

Yes, that is a platform that is going to win elections. Yes, this is a man serious about preserving Western civilization, and its creator race. Yes, we don’t really need to over-concern ourselves with the 2 million nonwhites pouring into the US (and the millions into Europe) every bloody year! Yes, it’s a better use of our time to theorize civilization’s philosophical fundaments than to figure out how to develop a single-issue anti-immigration movement to stabilize our populations, and end the artificial augmenting of our racial competitors-cum-enemies’ numerical strength. Yes, somehow it will all work out.

Yes, there are morons in the racialist movement.

Ripening harvest v. encroaching jungle. No retreat is possible. One wins, the other loses.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:34 | #

danielj writes: “To be fair to me I didn’t actually mean to suggest that the writer of Dune originated the idea, but rather, that you watched the movie—in which the idea of single combat plays a central role—one too many times.”

And of course you were just kidding.

However, I am not kidding when I say that guys like you actually have watched too many movies and as a result suffer hopelessly distorted Being specifically with regard to their masculinity and its relationship to deadly single combat.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:00 | #

pug and Leon Haller: What didn’t you understand about the second sentence in the post:

Everyone knows the derisive connotation of “duel” as a dysgenic display of mutilated manhood wherein two men try to kill each other under conditions bearing virtually no relationship to those under which man evolved.

Posted by pug on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:32 | #

Okay, then. How is duelling, as defined in the Seven Points, significantly eugenic (define, please: in that its application—and constraints—promotes harmony, altruism, sense of Being, European creativity?)? Am I to take your undocumented claim for granted? On your define-so?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:40 | #

JM asks of mass warfare as “duel” between bodies politic: “And by so doing, increase the risk of granting advantage to Judah, which is better suited to collectivist endeavors?”

With the 20th century as a clear example.

But to be more precise “sustained collectivist endeavors”.  It is clear that individual integrity lends itself to far greater scales of collective endeavors simply because contracts are honored in their intent—rather than in “a pound of flesh”.  Among individuals of integrity, the contract is the DNA of the group and because it is so concise and clearly transmissible as a meme—it can form the basis of much greater cohesion among much larger populations of individuals of integrity than can the implicit and complex agreements reached by inclusive fitness and libraries of “laws”. 

But let’s be clear on this one point:

No one with individual integrity is going to enslave themselves to a contract binding them to the mission stated in terms other than its termination within the natural life of the individual (ie: declaration of war).  “Do or die”, yes.  Slavery, no.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:48 | #

pug asks: “How is duelling, as defined in the Seven Points, significantly eugenic”

The fact that the Seven Points never mentions the word “duel” and the fact that the dominant connotation of “duel” is clearly dysgenic and the fact that the entire point of this thread is discussing the abuse of this word seems beyond your grasp. 

Why do you behave so if not merely to act with the same sincerity as does I Bismuth by screaming “NAZI SCUM!!! NAZI SCUM!!!” repeatedly?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:07 | #

Leon, ignoring for the moment your ignoring of the entire point of this thread regarding the word “dueling” let’s clear up some confusion:

My recent emphasis on bringing down civilization is simply in response to guys who think the electoral system is going to enact their political platforms consisting of relentlessly vague and verbose wish-lists of planks. 

You aren’t going to do it.  You aren’t even in the ballpark.  This from a guy who actually has gotten legislation signed into law by the US Federal Government according to the sponsor of said legislation.

I gave you guys a chance with a single-plank citizens dividend platform—a certain way to take immediate control of the European Union while accomplishing, in one fell swoop, the majority of your vague wish-lists.

You can’t be bothered.

Some of us will go forward with routing the inevitable collapse of civilization in a way that is most likely to inure to the benefit of Europe’s best.

The rest be damned.

Posted by pug on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:23 | #

The connotation is defending one’s honour, not wanton destruction of life. Though I now completely grasp your point, and will not call it so again in your threads. I meant no trolling; I don’t typically judge by externals such as words, and, being a perfect shorthand, your point admittedly went completely over my head, since we all understand what single combat is, and the points can be read. I apologise for that.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:01 | #

Pug:  Man evolved in an environment that many call Nature and others call “The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness” (EEA).  Some deny that man evolved at all and, as what some might call a “creationist” (most likely in a connotation-play), I have nothing to say to such cretinous “representatives” of my beliefs except, “STFU”.  Not even the watch is blind.

Intellectually dishonest individuals will quibble over EEA, claiming that there is no such thing due to the varying environments within which man evolved and the biodiversity of man.  They are, of course, overplaying their hand and denying something I have never affirmed—and that is the Leda Cosmides and John Tooby sophistry that human nature is uniform.  Indeed, I am affirming the opposite:  Euroman has, for a variety of reasons including his unique series of environmental challenges during his racial evolution, come closest to the manifest direction of creation:  The Individual of Moral Integrity.

When you speak of “honor” in relation to single combat, you are speaking of what I call “moral territory”.  Two men may differ and respect difference not merely as something to be “tolerated” but as something to be treasured and loved in the sense of man’s love of man.  This includes love of one’s enemy even as one kills him—love of one’s enemy not because he is one’s enemy, but because he is a man of integrity and therefore must fight to the death for his integrity.  The reason “hate” is such a buzz-word among our collective “enemies” is they know they are not men of integrity but rather makers of “serpents”, “vipers” and “dragons”—semiorganisms that possess even less morality, integrity and intelligence than the beasts so slandered by association.  There certainly is a place for collective action by individuals of moral integrity, and that is in slaying such semiorganisms but more importantly the makers of such semiorganisms.  Such killing is not conducted as against an enemy but as against a force of nature—something without so much as the spiritual essence of a slime mold wielding force of unquestionably great magnitude.  So it is true that “hate” is misplaced against such, but it is a stage through which most must pass before true perception.

If killing a true enemy—a man of moral integrity—is conducted within an environment similar to that within which man himself arose, where Nature provides the weak opportunities for strategic advantage over the brute, then it can be no more “dysgenic” than the environment that produced man himself.  For a man to claim such selection pressure is “dysgenic” is to deny his Being both as a human and as a male.

This “man’s love of man” is true religion.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:43 | #

danielj writes: “Some of us don’t believe in macroevolution or that the hunter-gatherer conditions you describe as “natural” ever prevailed. They certainly didn’t prevail for a significant enough time to impact our DNA.”

Arguing with you is rather futile since our perspectives differ so greatly there is little ground for communication.  I’m not really interested in educating your rather far-out view of the world.  I’ve got more important things to do like earn a living.

I will say this much:

The progress from asexual to sexual to moral life is as real as the emergence of life itself.

The mutilation of sexuality represented by the eusocial insects is not part of that progression.  What people ordinarily call “progress” is regression from morality and even sexuality.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 01:26 | #

Here’s a summation of what I have gotten out of this thread so far:

DNA is more capacious, concise, replicable, and enduring than any set of written laws.

The most important written law obtainable for the survival of a genotype is therefore that which dictates the method by which its DNA is to be preserved.

The best method for the generational preservation of DNA links the survival/mortality of its replicator to environmental conditions most similar to those by which it was originally selected.

The policy of single combat in a state of nature best approximates these conditions, and should therefore be codified.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 04:34 | #

James,

a favourite starting point of mine (soft, dysgenic, materialist egalitarian that I am) is Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaemonians.

Such is suited only for a very small city though.

The classics were widely popular within the Southern US, but they had previously been more exclusive in historical Europe. Today though of course we ridicule them, preferring populist material.

—-

It occurred to me one day that Sparta, though among the most thinly populated of states, was evidently the most powerful and most celebrated city in Greece; and I fell to wondering how this could have happened. But when I considered the institutions of the Spartans, I wondered no longer. [2]

Lycurgus, who gave them the laws that they obey, and to which they owe their prosperity, I do regard with wonder; and I think that he reached the utmost limit of wisdom.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 05:12 | #

And of course you were just kidding.

No. I was pointing out the joke.

However, I am not kidding when I say that guys like you actually have watched too many movies and as a result suffer hopelessly distorted Being specifically with regard to their masculinity and its relationship to deadly single combat.

You couldn’t carry my fucking tools James! My belt, hooks and tools weigh a whole lot more than the shit you carry from the refrigerator to your desk. You ever been up an eighty five foot high-line pole in a blizzard? I keep the little light on on your motherboard so you can pontificate about “states of nature” and my masculinity. My line of work is as close to nature as it gets James.

I’m not really interested in educating your rather far-out view of the world.

Don’t get it twisted dog.

I’ve got more important things to do like earn a living.

Said the computer programmer! One man’s earn is another man’s joke.

I thought you had, like, an astronomical IQ!? Isn’t the definition for work, force times distance or something?

Don’t you worry though. I’l stop communicating with you forthwith.

The best method for the generational preservation of DNA links the survival/mortality of its replicator to environmental conditions most similar to those by which it was originally selected.

One would think the falsity of this premise would be blindingly obvious. It would seem of the utmost import that a species adapt to its current environmental conditions rather than an approximation based upon some flimsily hypothesized, dubiously speculative, spectacularly unsubstantiated guess about “natural” conditions that are artificially imposed in the form of the most ridiculously colorful, wishful attempt at atavism—an atavism one could only dream up from inside a fucking k-hole.

What really bothers me though, is that White Nationalists already sound crazy enough to average folks and then somebody goes and doubles down on bat shit.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 05:19 | #

The best method for the generational preservation of DNA links the survival/mortality of its replicator to environmental conditions most similar to those by which it was originally selected.

Don’t forget that evolution stopped when we started growing artichokes in the fertile crescent!

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 05:42 | #

Daniel,

eugenics is an important matter.:

“Anyone who thinks the evolutionary issues which we are facing are easy should be treated with the deepest distrust! But nothing we can say will alter the fact that evolution is increasingly passing out of the power of natural uncontrolled forces into the power of human controlled forces.”

“We must create a system or evolve into other men’s”

-

And the great Chesterton: “[W]hile we can always get men intelligent enough to know more than the rest of us about this or that accident or pain or pest, we cannot count on the appearance of great cosmic philosophers; and only such men can be even supposed to know more than we do about normal conduct and common sanity.”

I just want to be sure everyone’s read those two.

-

“The Movement Must Be Willing to Appear Obnoxious”

Posted by brigadier on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 05:57 | #

I keep the little light on on your motherboard so you can pontificate about “states of nature” and my masculinity.

Bowery is of Quaker background.  It was a Quaker who discovered electricity.  It was such people that invented and developed all the technology that you work with today for your livelihood and that makes you feel so macho.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 07:01 | #

Aren’t Quakers pacificists?

My folks owned slaves…

Posted by Hamish on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:55 | #

What really bothers me though, is that White Nationalists already sound crazy enough to average folks and then somebody goes and doubles down on bat shit.

Yep.

But when has that ever stopped the flutternutter philosopher-historians and crackpot Solons from doing their mischief?

At least this Bowery guy is mildly less out of his skull than that Greg Johnson guy who wants to create human-animal hybrids.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:05 | #

Bowery is of Quaker background.  It was a Quaker who discovered electricity.  It was such people that invented and developed all the technology that you work with today for your livelihood and that makes you feel so macho.

Tesla was a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church and I don’t wear bifocals.

You don’t get it. I am significantly more macho than James which is what makes his blabbering about “combat” ridiculous. His usual tact won’t work either because everybody knows I’m not anonymous.

At least this Bowery guy is mildly less out of his skull than that Greg Johnson guy who wants to create human-animal hybrids.

Has Greg really said that? I just started reading counter-currents. Is there a link to substantiate this accusation?

Daniel,

eugenics is an important matter

I don’t deny that.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:06 | #

Frank asks: “Aren’t Quakers pacificists?”

Quakers originated with Norse settlers in northern England.  The Quaker meeting originated in the moot.

Think about how people of Norse ancestry would react to being told by a gang led by a coward:

“Thou shalt not kill (except when ordered to by a coward).”

As to my personal Quaker heritage:

There were some Scots-Irish Quakers, and my maternal line was among them.  My paternal line was Scots-Irish that was probably fleeing an order of fire and sword, and ended up hiding out in Sullivan County, TN.  These two Scots-Irish lines came together in Iowa and produced yours truly.  My father joined a rural church which happened to be Quaker where he met my mother.  Although he did have the option of not going to war in WW II, he nevertheless volunteered to join the Air Force, prior to Pearl Harbor, upon Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech (about 10 miles from his rural Quaker church at the time) as he was convinced by Lindbergh that the US Air Force was hopelessly behind Germany’s.  When he came back he married my mother in the town’s Quaker church which burned down within a month of their marriage.  They left the Quaker meeting and raised me in the Nazarene Church but upon reaching adolescence my maternal grandfather invited me to join the Quakers as a way of avoiding the Viet Nam War.  I attended but it was clear that the Quakers were being invaded by a “foreign element” that I found distasteful.  In retrospect what was really going on was Jews were using the Viet Nam War as a way of fucking Norse heritage girls in the Quaker churches.

So, if someone wants to accuse me of having a “personal vendetta” regarding reinstatement of single combat to the death, they might consider me a Norseman whose people had found a few centuries refuge from “Christianity” and its coward-directed mass warfare combined with prohibition of single combat to the death, and then discovered that even this refuge had been violated—hence all bets were off and it was time to revisit the long-forgotten ancestral traditions.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:13 | #

danielj’s assertion of his “macho” credentials as though they were to the point about masculinity misses the point I made to pug:

“Nature provides the weak opportunities for strategic advantage over the brute…” 

danielj acts as though Mike Tyson is more masculine than he.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:46 | #

Danielj:

... up an eighty five foot high-line pole.

I always picture you as having both feet on the ground. 

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:04 | #

James:

I know yer’ Quaking in yer’ boots, but I deserve some acknowledgement for my comment at 12:26.

If my bids to be teacher’s pet are gonna be overshadowed by Danielj’s ADHDD, what incentive will I have to resist mischief?

Leon: Now might be a good time for you to praise my recent seriousness as well, lest you find yerself reading a towering work of power-line poetry???

Praise, Leon. You can do it! You too, James.

Captcha = 62power

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:27 | #

Jimmy Marr writes: “I know yer’ Quaking in yer’ boots, but ...If my bids to be teacher’s pet are gonna be overshadowed by Danielj’s ADHDD, what incentive will I have to resist mischief?”

Jimmy, replace “but” with “because” and you’ll be correct.  Nothing beats the Joker in a world without honor.

So let me say this:

DNA is more capacious, concise, replicable, and enduring than any set of written laws.

The most important written law obtainable for the survival of a genotype is therefore that which dictates the method by which its DNA is to be preserved.

The best method for the generational preservation of DNA links the survival/mortality of its replicator to environmental conditions most similar to those by which it was originally selected.

The policy of single combat in a state of nature best approximates these conditions, and should therefore be codified.

My fear of being accused of plagiarism is overcome by fear of the other option.

Having paid the sincerest form of flattery let me say in even more sincerity, however belated and deflated of credibility by fear of the wrath of your righteous humor, that your summary is well done and appreciated.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:51 | #

Frank, I will say this much for Lycurgus:

He clearly understood the function of homosexuality in group sovereignty.  Moderns have lagged behind Lycurgus until Karl Bowman’s removal of homosexuality from the APA’s list of psychopathologies.

However, cloning technology obviates homosexuality.

PS: A little over a decade ago I started thinking about a movie featuring some guy cloning himself exponentially using third-world wombs to the point that his “children” could emerge as a group whose avowed religious mission was to prevent the evils of cloning in the world.  Remind you of any groups you know?

Posted by brigadier on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:16 | #

You don’t get it.

No, you don’t get it.  Without such people that technology that makes you feel so macho wouldn’t be around.  You’d be running a citrus stand, or maybe in the mafia if you’re ambitious.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:47 | #

Without such people that technology that makes you feel so macho wouldn’t be around.

Interesting.

We excel in the creation of technology, but need also to guard against it’s “creation”, (i.e. modification), of us.

This puts me in a mind to review what I have of Theodore Kaczynski’s thinking.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:27 | #

James,

“Remind you of any groups you know?”

Is that Scientology?

“These two Scots-Irish lines came together”

You’ve got good blood, I’ll say that.

“it was time to revisit the long-forgotten ancestral traditions.”

Haha, that’s the right way to win me over. Somewhat though we should learn from the Roman’s superior method of fighting as a group. Only a Norseman / Scot / etc. could call a Roman a coward.

However, we don’t know enough about their traditions to say whether they match well with your proposal. A shadow can warp. I thought you’d find more of value in Sparta’s Constitution. There are some other Greek comments on Sparta elsewhere btw. It’s not my ideal, nor is Plato’s Republic & Atlantian tale; but I like the general spirit and goals. And I think similar laws & traditions could cultivate a race virtuous enough to lead others. Ah, I also like the Southern Agrarians, distributists, third position, etc., though I haven’t pulled every piece out and carefully studied it all to reach that next level, which perhaps you have with your [different] views.

“In retrospect what was really going on was Jews were using the Viet Nam War as a way of fucking Norse heritage girls in the Quaker churches.”

I’m sure they were draft dodging too, not that I can blame anyone for dodging though many Vietnam vets would think little of you as a result of this.

Anyway like blacks, Jews really like their sex, and of course the border areas dream of northern European women… I’m glad that East Asian women are popular too, so maybe the Jews etc. will target them and lessen efforts at our women…

If you listen to the radio stations targeted at women, the dance stations which admittedly have good energy though I can’t listen for too long, they play mostly black men and white women. And every song is about sex, pleasure, vanity, and such. I wonder to what extent nowadays that it’s design and what extent it’s merely the result of our quasi-capitalism, not that true libertine capitalism would be any better.

-

Jimmy,

“We excel in the creation of technology, but need also to guard against it’s “creation””

Man is increasingly powerful though decreasingly worthy of wielding such power.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:29 | #

Just to specifically address it: reg. the King’s Champion, a King oughtn’t be a coward, but I don’t think the strongest ought to rule.

And a state ought to be designed similar to a human: with a head and arms (military) and feet (farmers, etc.) and such.

We live in a more organised society than whence we came. A higher level of organisation is needed.

-

Anyway, I’m posting too much here lately. I need to focus on some other matters, though I’ll be sure to check back to read any replies.

Best of luck with your proposal, and if you find yourself idle sometime… read the Greeks! (if you haven’t) Their blood was once better than it now is, so they’re not really foreign.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 04:29 | #

Apologies if I was rude when I brought of WoW. I was a little annoyed with the dueling being mentioned repeatedly. I can’t even locate where I made the comment to see what even happened there. Anyway, you don’t seem like a bad guy (and I especially don’t want to be brained by a large claymore - I joke).