Posted by Rollory on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 07:19 | #

“Forget “game”.  Men who experience hostility toward women”

You don’t understand what you are talking about.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:31 | #

civilization based on female individual sovereignty without corresponding male individual sovereignty will not last.

Just what is it that makes you think the vast majority of Whites are worthy of “sovereignty”, Bowery?  For an intelligent man, capable of thinking for himself, to listen to them for but a moment is to know that their minds are not capable of going beyond the superficial, the immediate, the temporal.  They are cretins and will always be such.  The extant dispensation only exacerbates that fact - it does not make it so.  The path of strength, of moral courage, lies not in imposing a brutal regime of single deadly combat on the masses as the expression of one’s cosmic outrage at the all too human state of said, but in wielding a firm yet compassionate hand with which to guide them.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:10 | #

Of 3 responses so far, no one has addressed the fundamental problem that freedom for women presents to civilization.  My position is that you can’t address it.  Pandora’s box has been opened.  The contract as been breached—the foundation shattered. Nothing like this has happened before in history.  Global civilization teeters and must be taken down before it collapses uncontrollably.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:40 | #

So you curtail the freedom of women within the confines of civilization.  Sheesh.  It’s not as if that hasn’t been the case for most of civilization’s history anyway.

But how to do that?  Well, how do you put a man on the moon?  I’m sure we’ll figure out something.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:46 | #

CC: “I’m sure we’ll figure out something.”

For example, what we see in fundamentalist Islamic violence is a relatively “healthy” attempt to prop up civilization despite its shattered foundation.  Other attempts to prop it up are even worse.  “White nationalists” who think they can offer an authoritarian solution have to, first, get authority.  This little “miracle” of theirs is always promised and even less likely to be delivered than the Islamic fundamentalist’s.

PS: “It’s not as if that hasn’t been the case for most of civilization’s history anyway.” is stating a weaker form of my premise, which is that it has always been the case in civilization’s history because it is foundational.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:01 | #

Bowery,

Let’s do try and not pole-vault over mouse turds, shall we?  I have several relatives with IQs as high as yours and they all managed to reproduce in the context of stable marriages.  Two of them are indeed by choice house wives.  The other, you guessed it, a computer programmer and the father of three children.  It’s like Fred Scrooby always used to say, the difference between degenerate and normal.

Those are the kinds of people we want in a mass movement.  The kind that will set a good example for the rest.  If one wants in - and believe me, sooner or later the lemmings will want in - then, as the brothas be sayin’ un shit, “Better come correct.”

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:43 | #

Your reliance on personal anecdotes (and imputed insults) for vision is pretty lemming-like itself.  Although I wouldn’t impute to white nationalism such bankruptcy of leadership, the absence of other responses to the dilemma created by female liberation does not bode well for “the movement”.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:56 | #

Moral courage and confidence is what defines leadership as far as I’m concerned. 

Women respect a man who keeps his pimp-hand strong but uses it sparingly.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:27 | #

On the relation between the sexes:

Men build the world, so that women can perpetuate it.

(a Leon Haller original)

Posted by JImmy Marr on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:33 | #

Paradox: If Captain is right, his most potent means of realizing his vision is to challenge James to single combat, thus proving him right.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:39 | #

Jimmy, yes there is more to leadership than mere moral courage and confidence.  Discretion, for instance, would have been the better part of Hitler’s valor.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:42 | #

Global civilization teeters and must be taken down before it collapses uncontrollably. (JB)

How is global civilization threatened by feminism? Do not assert - demonstrate.

White civilization is threatened (also Japanese), but only because feminism lowers fertility, and we are being massively outbred by pre- or anti-feminist ethnys *(Latinos, Africans, Arabs). Eventually, they will conquer us, and either exterminate us or miscegenate us into extinction.

But “global civilization”? Whites were not the only civilization (the best, of course). Our disappearance will not herald the end of either humanity or civilization, just a lowering in quality.

Now I could make one plausible (but hardly definitive) argument demonstrating that human civilization might not endure without whites. But Bowery has not made this argument, and I will wait for someone else to make it.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:44 | #

CC writes:  “Women respect a man who keeps his pimp-hand strong but uses it sparingly.”

At last!  A response to the issue I raised!

How a man “keeps his pimp-hand strong bug uses it sparingly” is then key to maintaining civilization.  To CC, this is a “mouse turd”.  I would tend to agree, but not for the same reasons as CC.

Ill-defined terms like “pimp-hand” are loaded with connotation and are of little effect outside the ghetto; the ghetto admittedly defining an ever larger portion of society.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:57 | #

Leon, global civilization would be in dire straits even without feminism, but short of conversion to eusocial species like ants, termites or bees, feminism is sufficient to cause its collapse.

I’ve argued elsewhere that the foundation of civilization is defense of agricultural territory of individuals in exchange for those individuals giving up their sovereignty.  He submits his will to a “higher power”. 

In this contract the individual man is put at reproductive risk by the female’s instincts to mate with the strongest male in her environment, and a submissive man—the civilized man—is rejected so she can find the man causing other men to submit.  The compromise therefore allowed the creation of a pseudo-natural environment within the family where the man could legally maintain dominance over the women.  Remove that and you are left with “pimp-handed” men, ie:  non-white men.  Certainly one can argue that civilization can get along without whites—at least in the absence of the other threats posing dire straits.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:12 | #

Ill-defined terms like “pimp-hand” are loaded with connotation and are of little effect outside the ghetto

I mean be a take charge kinda guy.  Be Alpha.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:09 | #

JB,

People have been predicting civilizational collapse for at least a century. (Non-religious) apocalyptic scenarios arose as the scale of human existence became unimaginably more complex over the course of the 20th century (secular conspiracy theories go back to the 18th century, but they really flourished in tandem with this incredible increase in the scale of complexity confronting humans, whose brains probably have not evolved much since the Stone Age). Yet, when I head in to LA, I still see civilization even there, albeit much degraded from my dad’s day. When I return to the OC, non-degraded civilization awaits. Where’s the collapse? When will it become evident? How will one know?

What I can’t seem to ascertain from your writing is why civilization collapses just because of female empowerment (something I personally dislike, to be sure). Are you making an argument akin to Roger Devlin’s “re-Africanization of the West” (I don’t recall his alleging collapse, though - just greater degeneracy)? That is, feminism makes white women behave more like black women, which will cause their progeny to behave like savages, which will eventually reach a tipping point wherein there will no longer be enough people to ‘man’ the vital centers of a complex industrial civilization. I could see this happening, but it’s not going to happen (the tipping point) within our lifetimes. I know plenty of white feminist women who are happily married to my friends, and are successfully raising kids, too. No signs of collapse, and certainly nothing imminent.

To reiterate, the evil of feminism from a nationalist perspective is that it lowers white fertility. It also creates greater dissension on the domestic front, which interferes with a white man’s fulfillment of his racial responsibilities.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:31 | #

I’m not familiar with Roger Devlin.  Did he write cite “Race, Gender and the Frontier” or is he another Einstein?

Posted by anon on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:15 | #

Leon Haller, less the Christian claptrap, is one of the best minds to grace our little hustings. Excellently brief job deflating Bowery’s scenario.

Posted by Ned on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:33 | #

I’m not familiar with Roger Devlin.  Did he write cite ”Race, Gender and the Frontier” or is he another Einstein?

I’m just reading this “Race, Gender and the Frontier” thing now, and it is very interesting.

I have a question though.

You start with the following:

The progress of humanity, from its earliest hunter-gatherer hominid groups in subsaharan Africa to the technological progress of Western Civilization, has been driven by pressures to survive in marginal habitats placed on excess or “beta” males by the polygamy of dominant or “alpha” males selected by the reproductive preferences of females.  It is this process of expansion into marginal habitats driven by the inequities of polygamy that gave rise, first, to racial gradients with climate and then to a moral of monogamy arising from the harsh necessities of northern climates.

My question is this: How did the “beta” males reproduce and found new races if they were driven to marginal habitats and the “alpha” males hoarded all the women? Where would they get the women?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 21:41 | #

Read the next paragraph consisting of the single sentence:

Monogamy only exists where successful rearing of children to reproductive age requires the exclusive support of a male.

In short:  Paternal investment.

The point of referencing that ancient work was to simply point out to guys like CC and Leon that they’re not talking to the guy they think they are.  There was nothing close to that work at that time.

Actually, I take that back ... there was some work that predated RGF that was on the same track but I only discovered them recently (as in the last month).  As it turns out the same folks that came up with the natural dual laws, came up with overlapping ideas and wrote about them circa 1980—a decade prior to RGF (although I did have something I wrote around 1982 that anticipated RGF it wasn’t as advanced as their contemporaneous work).  I was familiar with their work on natural duel years before I discovered their other writings that had priority over RGF in some important areas.  The primary author I’m referring to wrote under the name John Harland for Sovereign Press.

They even anticipated the essential ideas in “Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society” as I’ve discovered.  This kind of priority is something that any intellectually honest man has to take seriously.  Too bad intellectually honest men are in such short supply or MR would be a far more productive investment of time.

PS:  The reason I’m running across this prior work now is that I’m increasingly of the opinion that there is not going to be an incremental devolution of sovereignty, as much of my prior work has been hopefully positioned.  Although their proposal for orderly devolution was similar to my later proposals (such as citizens dividends for parliamentary takeover and the Laboratory of the States platform),  their work in that area was equally futile.  It will not be incremental.  It will be catastrophic.

Posted by Ned on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:03 | #

I get the monogamy and paternal investment part once in the marginal habitats, but I was just wondering how they get the women in the marginal habitats. I thought the women would stay with the “alpha” males in the benign habitats.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:05 | #

They were in a Malthusian situation.  The carrying capacity of the benign habitat is limited.  The betas offered them a “marginally” better situation.

Posted by Ned on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:33 | #

Ok I see.  Makes sense.

Posted by Ned on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:48 | #

Leon Haller, less the Christian claptrap, is one of the best minds to grace our little hustings. Excellently brief job deflating Bowery’s scenario.

You’re being sarcastic, I hope.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:25 | #

After looking up “Roger Devlin” I now have a better understanding of what GW meant in times past when he referred to the “Regnery circus”.

But to be fair, the Regnery circus is trying to compete with the show put on by the mainstream press.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:27 | #

I’m not familiar with Roger Devlin.  Did he write cite ”Race, Gender and the Frontier” or is he another Einstein? (JB)

Not sure what you mean, though the essay you wrote looks interesting.

I’m surprised at your unfamiliarity with Dr. Devlin. He writes often on gender issues from the WN perspective, mainly for TOQ, though the phrase I used was taken from a very good article of that title published in AR a couple of years ago.

Don’t all regular commenters here read The Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance?

Posted by torgrim on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:08 | #

“Further to earlier comment about the increasing paranoia of the state”...R.Reis

Excuse the bit off topic, but, in regards to state paranoia, here is something, IF true, is an interview from a self professed “whistle blower” about the bush wars…before this goes down the memory hole.

It seems that Susan Lindauer was sent away for a” mental health evaluation”, and a prison stay on a military reservation, without due process, under the “Patriot” Act.

truthjihad.blogspot.com/2011/01/cia-asset-susan-lindauer-blows-whistle.html

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer