Civilization Takedown: Immigration vs the Individual Man

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 12:18.

With the recent successes, of the “liberty movement” among Ron Paul supporters, in taking over the Republican Party in several States, the issue among them now has become immigration and it is very intense. There is now a full-frontal assault going on within the liberty movement to dispense with any notion of national borders so that the threat of the founding stock Americans finding their political voice is terminated. Founding stock Americans, highly individualistic as they are, become very animated and moved by rhetoric appealing to the “individual” but are bereft of any outside the Austrian School of economics to provide an organized voice on their behalf in the verbose stew of confusing words that is political discourse. This is where the decades of preparation by the Jews of the Austrian School of economics pays off for them. They saw this coming. They prepared for decades. Now is unleashed a highly disciplined, well versed vanguard. The hapless founding stock American is deluged by words from high verbal IQ sophists that attack his core being and betray all his deeply rooted feelings about liberty and America.

My prior discussions of the uniquely innate individualism of Euroman making him uniquely valuable at the same time that he is uniquely vulnerable to abuse by civilization, are illustrated in excruciating detail by this heated battle of words that has real potential to go “hot” in the physically violent sense.

Two of the most heated battle of words on the topic of immigration appear at the website “ronpaulforums.com”. Below the fold, I offer the two responses that appear to have terminated those respective battles within the liberty movement. Although there will be many more such battles in this war of words (and even these battles may yet linger) they are offered as a kind of instrument for analyzing the structure of that movement as well as a summary of my political economic views that are “friendly to civilization while upholding the individual”.

In response to a thread by the pseudonymous “Enforcer” title Immigration - THE Ultimate Thread…

In sexual species it is a natural right of any individual male to challenge any other individual male, especially one entering into the former’s territory, to combat. This is so fundamental an aspect of sexual species that secondary sexual characteristics such as horns, not to mention size, musculature, tusks, etc. are specialized for this role.

The idea that humans are, or should be, fundamentally different flies in the face, not only of known human history—particularly northern European history in which natural duel was the formalized appeal of last resort in dispute processing prior to JudeoChristianity—but United States history as exemplified by duels in which the first major opponent of central banking, Andrew Jackson, the first major proponent of central banking, Alexander Hamilton, and major political figures such as Aaron Burr participated and were injured if not killed.

Collectivist conflicts, usually going by the name of “war” are a direct and inevitable result of individual men giving up this natural right of males, for if it were to be uniformly enforced (as it was in the pre-Christian northern European tribes who would execute a man who shrank from a challenge by another man), an individual man could challenge the leader of the opposing army and be done with the war.

So now we understand that civilization itself is founded on the protection of official “positions” from challenge to natural duel. As this protection against natural masculinity has been extended to all members of society in recent centuries, it has also been extended to immigrants—to the men who cross territorial boundaries under the protection of those who occupy official “positions” who are, themselves, protected from challenge to natural duel.

So the individual man is now left in a quandary:

Should he support civilization or not?

For many, perhaps even most men, the answer, as the fruits of such “official” acts as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 are manifest, is a resounding “No!”

For the open borders advocates who find the Protean “irrationality”—even “mental illness”—of their opponents puzzling, look no further. You will not be finished with your Great Work until you have eradicated the individual.

In response to a thread by the pseudonymous “ProIndividual” titled: “Immigration Policy Poll: Law to Prevent Immigrants from Getting Benefits for X Years”

Its gratifying to see AntiIndividual at least dancing around the idea that there may, indeed, be no such thing as “proof” in the natural sciences (hence “Correlation doesn’t imply causation.” is a truism since not even controlled experiments imply causation.) It is increasingly recognized in the social sciences that the important thing to do is pay attention not only to “the weight of the evidence” but, (and this gets the the heart of the disagreement AntiIndividual and I have) to, as described in the discourse in “implication analysis” in the social sciences “try harder to find relevant natural experiments”.

So not only is it a truism that “correlation doesn’t imply causation” it is a sophomoric barrier to scientific progress which understands not only that there is no “proof” but that some “correlations” are more relevant to evaluation of causal hypotheses in the social sciences than are other correlations.

The question comes down to the word “evaluation” since we’re trying to place a “value”, indeed a numeric value, on a causal hypothesis rather than “test” it in a logical sense. To the Monetary Man, this numeric “value” is quantified in money as a net present value adjusted for future risk. The Monetary Man is, however, not the Natural Man from whom Natural Rights derive.

How in the world are we, unachored from the operational definition of “value” as embodied in money, to place value on which correlations, hence which “natural experiments” to study (hence which such experiments to actively promote)?

My answer, that is friendly to civilization while upholding the individual, is directly hostile to Monetary Man since I place Natural Man above Money:

Provide an inalienable and equal monetary stream to each individual so that individual may, through the subordinate anarcho capitalist system, construct his own world in cooperation with others. In such a world many “natural experiments” will be conducted and they will be conducted in proportion to value determined from a founding notion of sovereign individuals who, in exchange for their inalienable monetary dividend from civilization, agree that the ultimate appeal in dispute processing will not be force, but money.

The source of revenue is therefore obvious:

The property rights that would not exist in the absence of that agreement, appropriately called “artificial property rights” as opposed to “natural property rights” such as a homestead supporting an individual and his immediate family, are subject to that agreement and are, therefore, as with any partner’s profit stream from a business venture, optimally divided between payout and retention. The payout is the individual sovereign’s profit from the partnership which is limited by the expectation of future value from the partnership. Of course, if the future value of the partnership (ie: civilization) falls to zero, then the partnership is dissolved, the wealth distributed equally and we go back to natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing until another partnership again restrains individual sovereignty.

The reason AntiIndividual is not properly called “ProIndividual” is that he denies that the individual is preeminent over civilization and hence is to be asked for what terms he demands of civilization and its artificial property rights prior to suspending his true, forceful, individual sovereignty. He simply takes from the sovereign individual his natural right to use force and he does so by forming a group that takes it from him—a group that has volumes upon volumes of words from the likes of the Austrian school to rationalize their crimes.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:34 | #

“In sexual species it is a natural right of any individual male to challenge any other individual male, especially one entering into the former’s territory, to combat. This is so fundamental an aspect of sexual species that secondary sexual characteristics such as horns, not to mention size, musculature, tusks, etc. are specialized for this role.”

Direct physical contests between individuals for mates is a feature of the animal world – that’s a stunning insight to be sure but. . .please take human concepts out of the picture. Where do these ‘natural rights’ exist? Who enforces them? If a male stag beetle has ‘a problem’ with another do they take them to beetle court? Even if you’re describing something which is very real perhaps desist from wrapping it up in this degraded talk of ‘natural rights’?

Yes in the human world we take such inventions and concepts seriously (especially within liberal political philosophy) but honestly the rest of the natural world has no knowledge of, nor care for ‘rights’ talk. It is simply brute, amoral, majestic in its glorious totality. Things merely are in such a reality.

OK I’ll leave you and Mr. Haller to have a discussion – personally I’m not interested in another rehash of John Locke’s silly and utterly nonsensical model of the human subject and associated topics within liberal theory. Nor indeed am I interested in debates between American liberals of differing varieties about just how legitimate Nozickian property rights are etc.

I think I rather read about Althusser’s concept of structural causality…yes it really is that bad, but anything is better than ‘enjoying’ the conceptual car-cash of a ‘libertarian’ thread at MR.

Posted by uh on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:53 | #

Hm. No, I would also rather read Althusser. Are we Jews now?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:03 | #

Graham, I know you have difficulty understanding nature let alone Nature so let me put it this way:

When two male animals go at it in nature, there is no court of law because the judges are individual females deciding whom to preserve and individual males deciding whom to destroy. These decisions are right because they are Nature’ definition of right.

There’s nothing “libertarian” about it until we humans start making verbal agreements that, if they ignore Nature, are usually “collectivist” and if they pay attention to Nature are sometimes called “libertarian” but only if they don’t involve Jews such as those who try to come up with “axioms” that oppose Nature, as do the Austrian School and the Objectivists.

Ya’ll are too busy coming up with towering edifices of jive-talkin’ to hear Nature speaking in its own words such as birth and death, male and female.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:55 | #

JB, with respect, you are only addressing one side of the sexual selection coin. The first is the male conflict/ female passivity you describe and the second is the active female participation in selection.

The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners.

Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex

From the second arises sympathy, not seen in savage man. And from sympathy arises civilization. As Darwin predicted, civilized man dominated savage man to the point of extinction, only abated by the instinct of sympathy writ larger.

Posted by Ian on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:16 | #

James,

A reason your views have trouble getting through to people might be that you overestimate the amount of individualism and underestimate the amount of collectivism.

Enough time has passed since pre-Christian times that there may have been evolution in a more collectivist direction.

And many whites either are not descended from pre-Christian northern Europeans but from other white groups that may be more collectivist, or are mixed whites with heritage from the other white groups.

Also, part of the impulse or motivation for WN is to be part of a cohesive group or community. People who are relatively more collectivist oriented may be the types more attracted to WN and thus less receptive to your individualistic views.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:08 | #

Ian, KMac has addressed an even earlier genetic (he calls it “ethnic”) division between Euromen that involves what might loosely be referred to as Aryans vs Germanics. They originated from the same stock but one group, the Aryans, remained in closer contact with group entities and were therefore put into a state of quasi-continuous war. This resulted in the corresponding Aryan castes and incipient eusocial organization growing into the great Aryan civilizations. Understand this earlier split may be even more important than understanding what has happened to the Germanics during their JudeoChristianization, because the eusocialization of the Aryans provided the gateway for JudeoChristianization of their Germanic cousins.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:14 | #

Desmond, would you call the Germanics who clearly had, for centuries, been aware of civilization and rejected it “savages” in the same sense that one would call tribes and bands in other parts of the world that were not civilized? If not, then what significant characteristics distinguished their culture so that some nuance must be brought to the term “savage”?

If so, then how do you explain the first use of bronze to produce daggers was by the Beaker Culture—later to become swords in and around the Black Sea?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:11 | #

Sorry to go off-topic but here is one for our ‘free-market’ fanatics.

The extremely important LIBOR rate systematically and dishonestly manipulated for profit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/27/barclays-chief-bob-diamond-bonus-fine

So the obvious answer from our ‘correct theory’ is less regulation and even more freedom of action for these creeps is it? They are obviously so deeply trustworthy, yes?

But wait any regulation of economic matters is totally loathsome and an affront to freedom - I know this from the ‘correct theory’ that business schools provide for the ‘masters of the universe’ and others.

Jesus wept I think is the appropriate phrase at this point.

Posted by daniel on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:23 | #

Hey Jim,

As I recall, you propose that taxation be based not only on holdings beyond the homestead (the amount necessary for a couple to raise a family with sustenance and independence; which is tax exempt), but also critically based on site value.

I believe that it was in this show - http://www.whitenewsnow.com/wnnpodcasts/er-4-20-12.mp3 - that the old man asserts that the only way to tax the rich is through a wealth tax.

I’m sure that you have reconciled this somewhere, but other than site value being a matter beyond mere property, I’m wondering how you’ve reconciled non-property wealth conceptually, in terms of distributism.

It would seem to me that you might argue that this excess wealth is in need of societal protection as well and therefore legitimately subject to taxation.

Do you conceive of excess wealth as kind of site value? The bank, the vault, the equipment, the artwork, the oil and other natural resources, the technology, the community of beautiful women and genius friends…

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:39 | #

Site value is a special case of the network externality aka network effect. It has also gone by the name of “economic rent” in older literature.

When, in my response to the Austrian School sophist, I talked about “inalienable monetary dividend from civilization”, what I am talking about in more technical terms is the harvesting of the network externality from civilization for distribution to the partners as a compensation for the suspension of their natural rights—including the right to challenge any other man to natural duel and have him executed if he refuses.

I’ve written extensively on how one estimates the network externality aka network effect aka economic rent, hence how one goes about deciding what wealth will be retained by the organs of civilization vs that which will be harvested for payout to the civilizing partners (the “citizen’s dividend”). It basically boils down to placing all property rights defined by civilization under market-based assessment of net liquid value and applying an appropriate discount rate (for example, modern portfolio theory’s risk free interest rate) to estimate total economic rent in civilization.

This has the side effect of also defining the monetary base of civilization as all bids in escrow for the market-based assessment.

No one else has unified taxation, delivery of social goods, regulation of monetary base and anarcho capitalism subordinate to natural rights in contractual terms understandable to the common man. That’s not conceit. Its simple, if sad, fact.

BTW: The way assortative migration occurs here is trial by jury determining environmental damage. If a vectorist (eg: a Jew who considers “the politics of exclusion” to be “hate”, blah blah) decides he wants to bid a huge amount for a piece of real estate in the middle of a working human ecology so that the owner of that piece of real estate has to pay exorbitant tax or turn over ownership, he risks the owner actually taking his money and then immediately having lawsuit brought against him by his neighbors claiming environmental damages. The jurors, selected from the environment, would then most likely agree and demand punitive damages be paid to the neighbors for his malicious attempt to violate their working ecological hypothesis, thereby bankrupting the vectorist. Meanwhile, the normal monopolistic games played by Jews etc. are taxed out of existence since their liquid value is equal to the monopoly value—so they don’t have the money to even try buying their way into an environment they want to exploit. Mockery by Jews of the phrase “There goes the neighborhood!” would have an entirely new connotation and consequence.