|
|
|
Civilization Takedown: Natural Duel as Universalism If you are not clear about the meaning of the term “natural duel”, first read and re-read “The Tale of Lin Tse” (with codification at Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals (revised).) As a warning to the majority, (the majority of Majority Rights’ commentariate being only one sampling): when you scoff at the culture—the socially honored routes to women giving birth and men giving death—that created to you, you scoff at your very being. Despite my repeated statements explicitly denying that Natural Duel is appropriate in present, and the vast majority of historic, circumstances (group selection as “state of war”), detractors continually presume, in their statements, that I am advocating the introduction of Natural Duel into present circumstances. Very well. If I am going to do the time, I may as well commit the crime.
If White Nationalism, in present circumstances, adopted the Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals (revised), as relevant not only to White Nationalists, but as the codified Natural Law replacement for all forms of “Universalism”, it would do more than take down civilization—it would achieve the primary goals of White Nationalism: First, (accepting civilization’s claim of “peace”, thereby enabling Natural Duel) in accord with point 6 of Natural Law “Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:...” any White man could challenge any non-white man to Natural Duel under conditions that, due to the evolutionary history of Whites containing within it conditions similar to Natural Duel combat, would tend to favor the White man. Second, the non-White man would then scoff at the impotence of the White man when faced with the police powers of civilization. Third, since enforcement of a judgement can be by anyone by any means—not necessarily involving the challenger or those engaged in rendering the judgement—the scoffing non-White man would then “mysteriously” die in accord with points 6.5 “No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.” and 7 “Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 [trial—JAB] above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours.”. How many of these “mysterious” deaths do you think would have to occur before millions of non-White men would be fleeing White territory? What would be the White:non-White kill ratio? Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:21 | # A comprehensive and comprehensible body of law is being instituted, not lawless “enforcement squads”. Click through the link, read and comprehend. 3
Posted by Graeme on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:00 | # I get the rules behind it (points 6.5 and 7) that regulate when the enforcement squads can go to work. My questions are in response to the fact that you seem to be trying to get people who are opposed to or skeptical of the natural duel idea to go along with it by promising them that enforcement squads will rise up (pursuant to the laws you’ve outlined) to solve the problem. Why do it indirectly by establishing the natural duel first? Why not directly try to institute the enforcement squads? Do we have to keep the natural duel once enforcement squads have risen up? 4
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:33 | # Women are also, apparently, potential sovereigns. Isn’t it better odds for a man to challenge a women, or is that unfair? In addition, it appears that woman who resist unwanted sexual advances may be challenged. Either they declare formal approval of a sexual advance, even if unwanted or they are challenged. In effect then do you not reduce women, and by extension their children the elderly, the disabled, the infirm etc. to non-sovereign positions? Why then would anyone shield them unless, of course, the woman is carrying the sovereign’s child or some sympathy for the plight of the less fortunate arises? Which brings us back to little Lin and the sympathy that the spills over for the little yellow man, a foreign invader, because of the way he is treated by the big bad white lumberjack. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:01 | # I clicked on and read the Tale of Lin Tse, and I, too, was sympathetic to the little Asian. Moral values, like intellectual and artistic accomplishment, transcend race. The reader can relate to Tse on an individual moral basis. Are there no white bad guys? That doesn’t mean I am indifferent to “the Asian invasion” (I’m from Orange County, for Pete’s sake!). This is pretty simple, isn’t it? By now, at this point in the accelerating fall of the white man, I mean? All this duel stuff is such a distraction from the more interesting intellectual questions facing WNs (let alone the far more pressing practical ones, like how do we actually build up our forces, best awaken our people, strategize the Euro-reconquest, etc). [In some spare time I’ve started reading Jared Taylor’s latest work, White Identity, with a view towards writing and posting a review here. (Yes, I know I need to do the review of the slim ARKTOS Krebs mongraph, but I’m still doing background reading for that one - when I’m not doing my formal work, which is most of the time. Jared’s is much more journalistic and therefore straightforward.) I realize MR is a metapolitical nationalist site, which is fine, but I fail to see the value or relevance to that larger project in these very outre posts of Mr. Bowery’s.] 6
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:22 | # Leon I think on this one we would agree - this line of thought is very much a distraction and of almost no relevance to serious politics. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:11 | # Methinks the failure to argue against the assertion that this would send the invaders fleeing indicates that it would, indeed, accomplish White Nationalist goals—and apparently far more effectively and far sooner than the “serious politics” of Leon Haller and Graham Lister. Thanks for the vote of confidence! PS: As for the backhanded comment that Lin Tse would be an “invader” in this scenario, it is apparent that there are gradations of difficulties with other races experienced by Whites. There are also gradations of within races. Nuanced White Nationalism with “serious politics” of the real kind, as in “that which grows out of the barrel of a gun”, would be enabled by the adoption of this body of Universal Natural Law.. 8
Posted by Roland on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:48 | #
James, Doesn’t this provision allow sovereign women to circumvent the selective mechanism (individual combat) and substitute democratic-collective opinion? The reason I ask is that this provision reminds me of the feminist attempts to meddle with the definition of rape so that, given a felicitous set of circumstances, the mere accusation of rape could suffice to deprive a man of his freedom. Why challenge a man to combat when you can have sex with him and then accuse him of rape? Thanks for the thought-provoking posts. The theme of “civilization takedown” is a more apt categorization of Indo-Aryanism, given what we know from history, than the big-statist and collectivist pretensions to the contrary. 9
Posted by bristol on Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:48 | # Even if people are able to do this out in the woods, doesn’t this still leave the cities as redoubts from which the authorities can launch campaigns to subjugate the countryside? 10
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:07 | # Bristol, the whole point of going “universalist” with the Natural Law is that the cities would not be immune. We have organizations such as the United Nations with their “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” consisting of an endless laundry list of vague “rights” which, of course as with all “civilized” governments, will be selectively enforced so as to eliminate Whites from the face of the Earth. You will notice that in the 3 step scenario described in the original post, there is no geographic restriction and there is nothing the “civil” authorities can do about any of it when applied within cities. There is no other proposal on the table that can turn the White People into an effective fighting force. NONE. All the blithering and dithering is for naught*. This is a proposal for action that would work. It frightens cowards because it may mean their death. They don’t care about the White Race enough to die for its salvation—that much is clear. *And it is nigh unto despicable coming from those under parliamentary governments when they have done zero, nothing, zilch, nada, toward Citizen’s Dividends to Capture Parliamentary Governments. 11
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:51 | # Roland, it is certainly the case that under Natural Law, women are very dangerous creatures. But they aren’t the monsters that walk the face of Earth with the recent liberation of women’s godhood without the counter-balancing liberation of men’s godhood. While both you and Desmond raise points worthy of discussion, neither detracts from the original post’s argument that White Nationalism would achieve prompt victory if it adopted this codification of Natural Law. So, that said, I’ll address both sides of the goddess power issue: Desmond claiming she is powerless under Natural Law and you claiming she is potentially all powerful. First, to your argument since it has more merit. There are two scenarios you actually raise: 1) A woman has sex with a man in order to have him killed. In the first circumstance, Natural Law is clear: If a man cannot resist a woman’s seduction and demand that she formally acknowledge him as her lover, he is removed from the evolutionary stream. That is pro-White. In the second circumstance, the White man resists the seduction and she lies about it. This actually breaks down into three sub-scenarios: A) The community around her has a group bias against the man. In scenarios A and B, it is true that a jury may vote with the woman’s lie, deliberately failing to exercise due diligence. This, of course, is a problem with any “jury of peers” scenario. However, the general evolutionary direction of the Natural Law is to remove from the evolutionary stream underhanded dealings. It is far less likely that one would encounter such a corrupt jury. In any event, it is not as though any jury is the Supreme Court—wielding authority without geographic bounds. A man who finds himself in such a community* always has the option to vote with his feet well in advance of any danger of being falsely accused. In scenario C, the woman is most unlikely to achieve a conviction and, by committing perjury, she endangers her life. *Community, in the context of the original post must be clarified since it is given in the context of “Universalism”: All juries would be localized to the site where the accused individual was openly restrained. The time limit on the duration between apprehension of the suspect and trial creates practical limits on geographic distance over which restraint can be maintained. An accuser in a rape case would have a jury that knew her and, most likely, was willing to apprehend the suspect on her behalf. Desmond, (in addition to a non-issue) raises the valid issue of forceful pressures being applied to a woman’s otherwise free consent in announcing her sexual acceptance (or continued sexual acceptance) of a man. He claims that a woman, so desired, might not find someone willing to shield her without a kind of “prisoner rape” dynamic where protection implies her unwilling formal sexual acceptance of another. This is similar to the corrupt jury scenario raised by Rolland in that it relies on a pervasively corrupt community. If there is even one honorable man, he would, by offering his shield honorably, be able to add an attractive woman to his “court” and thereby enjoy social status. Failing that, there is always the “vote with your feet” option. Moreover, the type of man who would use threat of Natural Duel in order to extract a false public acceptance from a woman would be just the sort of man to be removed from the evolutionary stream by such Natural Law. In the proper definition of “nation” as social relations based on consanguinity and congeniality, the general gene pool would trend toward the honorable as the dishonorable were killed. 12
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:30 | # If a man cannot resist a woman’s seduction and demand that she formally acknowledge him as her lover, he is removed from the evolutionary stream. That is pro-White. The Sampson Option has a whole new ring to it. 13
Posted by bristol on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:31 | #
But practically speaking it would have to start somewhere, and that’s most likely to be outside of cities. The cities have lots of police, CCTV, surveillance, witnesses, etc. And the populations in cities - SWPLs, yuppies, metrosexuals, Jews, homosexuals, blacks, immigrants, etc. - don’t seem like people that would start doing it. Even if some city dwellers were the first to start practicing the natural duel, wouldn’t they have to physically leave the city and go to the woods to do it? 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:47 | #
Whites are unready to be turned into any kind of force. The population of global ‘objective’ whites, though dwindling, nevertheless vastly outnumbers that of ‘subjective’ (awakened) whites, though the latter is growing (albeit slowly). Any measure that directly tries to turn whites into a fighting force would simply be destroyed by the larger community of the unawakened. Our task at present is threefold: 1. Formulate the intellectual justifications and strategies for white survival. 2. Missionize the unawakened, until a substantial minority have joined us in spirit. 3. Encourage the already awakened to commit themselves to identitarian struggle, whether expressed as producing white children, forming mutual aid networks, engaging in nationalist activism, or learning survival skills, both pacific and martial. 1,2, and 3 are neither mutually exclusive, nor sequential. Indeed, they must be pursued concurrently. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:32 | # Bristol, let me clarify the first 2 steps in the original post’s scenario for you a bit: The challenging White man can reside in the city. The challenged non-White man can reside in the city. In the event the challenge is accepted, the assembly of Sovereigns deciding the specifics of the Natural Duel (its exact geography and timing, as well as other conditions consistent with The Natural Law) can reside in the city. In the event the challenge is rejected, the jury of Sovereigns handing down judgement, can reside in the city. Up to this point, no force need have been applied. It is all speech. What percentage of the urban population needs to be involved for these 2 steps to take place? 16
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:38 | # Leon Haller writes: “Whites are unready to be turned into any kind of force.” The Hel they aren’t! They are being and have been turned into a fighting force for Jews consistently for generations! The problem is, as Guessdworker would say, a “mere” matter of “ontology”: What does it mean to be White? I’ve answered that in the clearest possible terms: Being ontologically committed to the comprehensive and comprehensible body of Natural Law. You disagree that this ontology is correct. I disagree* that you are White. White loyalty is loyalty to our ancestry going back to the Creator. In that sense, all so-called “races” of humans are potentially loyal Whites but Euroman has a special place in his conscious yes-saying to the obvious prehistoric heritage of being committed to Natural Law as sexual organisms (individuals) first, and group organisms (parts of asexual primitive semi-organisms) only under duress from mass warfare waged by such primitive organisms. *Well, actually, it is hard to say to what you are truly being ontologically committed since I suspect even you don’t know until you “live it”. 17
Posted by bristol on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:29 | #
So at least 3 people, right? The challenger, challenged, and at least one 3rd-party. What about the logistical issues of the cities? You’re not likely to be able to communicate speech to a stranger in private. Even if you managed to get into the stranger’s apartment to speak privately, there are cameras, security, doormen, witnesses, etc. Speech would have to be made in public, with plenty of witnesses and cameras. Anything over the phone can be recorded. Written communication doesn’t work since it can be used for evidence. Rendering the judgment for someone who rejects a challenge suffers from the same problems. How would it route around or solve these issues? London is notorious for its surveillance. The NYPD is large and powerful. Would this be for smaller towns and cities, rather than colossal metropoles? 18
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:11 | # Bristol asserts: “You’re not likely to be able to communicate speech to a stranger in private.” All of the communication involving the first and second steps are public speech acts or they are unlawful as part of a Universalist application of the Natural Law. Remember, this is Universalist. The UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human RIghts” refuses to recognize Euroman’s right to exist despite Guessedworker’s best efforts. The United States refuses equal rights for Whites, despite the best efforts of White Nationalists to point out the “hypocrisy”, etc. of minority group politics. There is a simple reason why: The Dragon hates Whites and will do anything, say anything, to destroy Whites. We live now in the belly of the Dragon. The one thing the Dragon has had to concede in order to consume us is our supposed “free speech”. Saying “I challenge you to Natural Duel.” is not “hate” speech. Saying “We believe this person should be put to death for refusing a challenge to Natural Duel.” is not “hate” speech. It pertains strictly to an individual, and the Big Lie of the Dragon is that it brings us “peace”—where we needn’t operate as groups but as “individuals”. 19
Posted by bristol on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:36 | #
I wonder if people are able to understand or are willing to accept this. Or if people today are capable of even just beginning to think in these terms. I think the idea of men’s liberation consisting of men being able to fight and die and engage in combat of their own volition is just incomprehensible to people today. The common view of men’s liberation seems to be the same as it is for women’s liberation: men being able to participate in some sort of “dating market” with no rules or regulations aside from each side consenting to the “transaction”. For people today, men are “liberated” since they’re “free” to participate (or not) in the “dating market”. Is it possible to get people today to accept or seriously consider an alternative to this view of men’s liberation? How to get people to think alternatively if the common view of men’s liberation is being able to proposition any girl anywhere without anyone interfering (the only restriction being the propositioned girl’s consent), and if mortal combat is viewed not as liberation but as chaos? 20
Posted by bristol on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:54 | #
“Public” here means at least one 3rd-party Sovereign, right?
Yes but for the speech to be meaningful, it would have to correspond to actual events such as duels and punishments for refusing duels. And it’s easy to see how some sort of “human right” to live in peace, free of challenges to fight to the death or be punished to death for refusal, would be invoked. Even if the speech is not considered “hate speech”, it could be attacked for being threats, assuming the speech is meaningful and corresponds to some degree with real world events. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:28 | # “Public” must be interpreted in the context of “Universal”. Just as the United Nations does not accept any departure anywhere from its vague laundry list of selectively enforced Universal Declaration of Human Rights (unless, of course, if furthers the destruction of Whites), so too do Whites not accept any departure anywhere from Natural Law—but without underhanded exceptions. The speech acts of Natural Law, as Universally applicable, are to be public in the sense of international law—just as was the Declaration of Independence public in its intent to obtain recognition from the powers of the world. 22
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:48 | # Bristol writes: “I think the idea of men’s liberation consisting of men being able to fight and die and engage in combat of their own volition is just incomprehensible to people today.” It not only thinkable, it is a principle theme that sells Hollywood movies. PS: Not that an anecdote is needed but it does just so happen that I have in my mailbox at this very moment a return Netflix envelope of the most recent version of “The Three Musketeers” in which the protagonists are introduced in a series of challenges to mortal duels—all in good fun of course since before they can begin to kill each other they are all attacked by an army. Hollywood Jews understand Whites better than Whites understand themselves—including the suspension of Natural Law during war. This movie was rented pretty much at random. 23
Posted by bristol on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:30 | #
These are the principles, but we still have the practical issues of implementation, especially in cities, that were raised earlier. 24
Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:33 | # http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/04/14/trayvon-martin-retaliation-beatings-in-michigan/ “You didn’t hear about this is the media, but on the weekend of March 24th and March 25th at least seven white people were brutally beaten by mobs of blacks in Grand Rapids, MI. Five of the victims filed police reports. At least two other victims exist, and there are probably others. The local media has refused to report the cruel attacks and the authorities are resisting any serious charges. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/04/14/teen-flash-mob-strikes-nordstroms/ Related Links: Portland Flash Mob 25
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:17 | # Bristol still doesn’t understand that “public” really does mean “public” when he says: “These are the principles, but we still have the practical issues of implementation, especially in cities, that were raised earlier.” I don’t know how much clearer I an make it than I already did by saying “international law”. How “secret” was the Declaration of Independence? These public speech acts are PUBLIC speech acts. All of the speech acts comprising the first two stages of the original post could be broadcast live on all news programs. The third stage does not consist of any speech acts whatsoever and is another matter that I’m trying to get you to ignore for one reason and one reason only: You have utterly failed to understand the “practical issues of implementation” of the first two stages despite repeated explanation in a variety of terms. Please acknowledge you understand what I’ve been saying about the first two stages consisting ENTIRELY of speech that is TOTALLY PUBLIC. 26
Posted by bristol on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:12 | # Ok. So the challenges have to be public speech acts. Doesn’t that just identify the challenger to the authorities? If the challenged’s corpse is found in a ravine somewhere out of town, the authorities will know who to go after. The challenger will be suspect number 1. 27
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:31 | # London calling… Natural Law you say - Carl Schmitt and others might have something to say on that notion. Why is the pairwise duel so natural as to be all-encompassing? - it’s easy to think of situations of conflict/competition in the natural world that do not conform to such. Precisely how ‘natural’ is the civilised human world anyway? As for the ‘Three Musketeers’ - really is watching that movie now an example of ‘doing’ political philosophy? 28
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:42 | # bristol, I did ask you to focus. Specifically I asked you to focus on the first two steps so that you could have sufficient understanding to deal with the third. You’re making progress but you still have to take the progress you’ve made and go back and think about what portion of the urban whites would be required to commit to Natural Law as Universalism in order to promptly achieve White Nationalist goals. I’ll give you a clue: Less than 1% Let’s take a worst case scenario like New York City which has 3.5 million census identified “whites” and let’s say that 1.5 million of those are Jews and whatnot “whites” that really don’t count insofar as a culture of Natural Law is concerned. That leaves 2 million people with a substantial ancestral environment of Natural Law—being domesticated a mere thousand or so years ago. Out of that, let’s say there are only 1 in a thousand White Nationalists—people who seriously want to reverse the Jew-inspired invasion of White territory. Now, please, don’t be obtuse. Neither the challenger nor any of the jurors will take any action. That means there are just under 2 thousand “suspects” in any “mysterious” deaths that are associated with Natural Law judicial proceedings. Do you know anything about the interaction between guerrilla warfare and politics? 29
Posted by Fr. John+ on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:04 | # The fictiousness of the ‘noble Asian’ is compounded in this story, by the fact that it clearly posits a Western American/Canadian milieu. In America, when minds were saner, Chinese should never have been brought in, in the first place. If one still wishes to contrast Christendom man (even as sinful as the foul-mouthed store owner), read ‘Ways that are Dark.’ It’s one of our great failings as Westerners, to belive that non-Whites share our Humanity with us. Even a race as noble as the Japanese. 30
Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:01 | #
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate. google: “Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image ...groups.google.com/group/alt.politics…thread/.../dce8647679327096You +1’d this publicly. Undo 31
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:29 | # Fr. John+ writes: “In America, when minds were saner, Chinese should never have been brought in, in the first place.” Since the story of Lin Tse is based on a frontier West era setting, I’m not sure when you think “minds were saner”. While it is clear that, as you say, “Chinese should never have been brought in, in the first place.”, the historic contrast between the importation of Chinese slave labor and the importation of slave labor from Africa is so stark that it leaves little room for rational tolerance of your very un-nuanced White Nationalism. In the fictional book from which the story of Lin Tse is drawn (“Camp 38” by Jill von Konen) the various tri-breed (tri-“racial”) isolate human ecologies are separated by about a day’s chariot ride from each other. Each was engaged in consangunity with moderate gene flow between them—not unlike the Greek “demes”. If you want to establish new breeds of any species, that’s the basic strategy: Hybridize and then inbreed to clear out the junk until you have new lines that breed true to the selected characteristics. Moreover, the founding breeds were all from northern latitudes. This is comparable with the process occurring after Attila the Hun in Eastern Europe. I met a long-resident clan in the Pacific Northwest that was the product of this kind of mixing/inbreeding and the result was astounding: The occurrence of Nordic phenotypes among them was noticeably higher than the general population. Now, having said all that, today’s Chinese presence in the United States is of a very different character than it was in the frontier West and the Natural Law assortation would not be well-represented by “The Tale of Lin Tse”. There has been far too much selection for collectivism among the Imperial Chinese and far too little conscious recognition of the role that Natural Duel and women’s choice plays in a culture of god-heritage* men and women—martial arts notwithstanding. *It is worth mentioning that in the oldest of Chinese writings the South West is associated with Heaven Rule and the North East is associated with Dragon Rule. This roughly corresponds with the presence of Euroman in the South West. 32
Posted by bristol on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:50 | #
I had this in my mind in my comment at #17. I figured only a tiny percentage of urban whites would be necessary to start practicing natural duel when I stated “So at least 3 people, right? The challenger, challenged, and at least one 3rd-party.”
But presumably there is going to be other evidence from the “mysterious” deaths that will narrow down the pool of suspects. Also even if the challenger and jurors don’t take any action, what if they go after them by tying them to the “mysterious” death on the basis of the public challenge and saying that they’re part of a conspiracy or an accomplice or something?
What sort of dynamic do you think this would unleash? 33
Posted by bristol on Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:04 | #
I think the major reason your views are considered idiosyncratic and have been viewed skeptically is that there are fundamentally different motivations between you and most White Nationalists, as you seem to acknowledge here. You seem primarily motivated by this culture of natural duel and individualism and smaller communities that follow the culture. You seem like you’d be satisfied as long as these communities can be established and flourish and couldn’t care less what happens to Whites who aren’t interested in this culture. Whereas most White Nationalists are more collectively oriented and want to be part of something bigger, a bigger community or state, and care about what happens to other Whites.
34
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:25 | # The problem of “flexible” enforcement by the treasonous powers of the pseudo-laws is, of course, always with us. If anyone does anything that threatens their power, they can always trump up charges and have the threat repeatedly raped in prison by immigrant gangs until he dies of AIDS while sniggering that “he really wanted it”. That is their notion of “correction”. In this case, particularly in Great Britain, I can easily imagine the criminals currently in power deciding that merely to challenge another to Natural Duel would be “incitement to commit murder” if it were commonly expected that at least one “Lone Wolf"somewhere would take on the task of enforcing Natural Law in the event that the challenge was refused. There is also the possibility that even if the geographic setting designated for the Natural Duel were in a place where dueling is legal, that the criminals would claim the two participants have no right to leave the “jurisdiction” of the gang in power so as to conduct themselves in as fully sexed men. But when those in power are implacably committed to the destruction of your people, what are your options? Burn yourself before Parliament in protest? I have offered one plausible option that would <a >use citizens dividends to capture parliamentary governments</a> but no one is interested in actually making peaceful political progress. That much is clear. 35
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:57 | # Bristol writes: “You seem like you’d be satisfied as long as these communities can be established and flourish and couldn’t care less what happens to Whites who aren’t interested in this culture.” In fact, I am interested in the much larger population that share the gene pool with those that think of themselves as “racially aware”. That much larger population is currently sound asleep and I see Natural Law as a way to speak directly to the White genes. Make no mistake, Jews continually speak directly to those genes in their movies that are seemingly “obsessed” with climactic final battlesfeaturing the protagonist and the antagonist* in a duel to the death, with the chief difference that I want to speak in truth and without distortion. *An increasingly common theme is to have the protagonist take on an army and win. The function of this image is to set an impossible standard of performance for White heterosexual males. 36
Posted by Andrew on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:47 | # In reply to Mr Reis’s article, Obama’s lawyer admitted no such thing, and the original article erroneously constructs such an “admission” from what she does say in court. From the comments section, one commentator states
to which the author replies
I know the original comment was off topic, but it might be useful for people to see that it was not only off topic but also referenced a claim that was false.
37
Posted by daniel on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:18 | # What does it mean to be White? I’ve answered that in the clearest possible terms: Being ontologically committed to the comprehensive and comprehensible body of Natural Law. You disagree that this ontology is correct. I disagree that you are White. In my estimation this definition of what it means to be White is an error in judgment that stems from an over-commitment to empiricism. While individualism and ability to excel in duels may well be a distinguishing characteristic of the White system, manifest in a greater percentage of its players than of other groups, these are certainly not the only distinguishing and valuable European, or even northern European, characteristics. More, it is likely to be destructive from an ecological standpoint to try to quantify one set of variables. In fact, to undertake a list of alternative distinctions which contribute to overall White health and excellence could be extensive. I believe Jim’s focus on duels and individualism stems from a commitment to empiricism. That commitment probably corresponds to a wish for strong, fixed rules independent from the demographic flux and perverted rule structure of the west - attendant exploitation resulting from prohibition of classification and its upshot disorder - indeed, nearly unbearable for a sensible White man. However, empiricism, by analogy, tends to make the mistake of focusing on the procedures of one player on a team, say the left guard in American football, and developing theory based on it, irrespective of the moves and contributions of the rest of the team (system). One can name the contributions of the rest of a system, even one that values individualism, and see ones that are not reduced to sovereign, shield, individual, individual winner in a duel by dint of cunning and technological skill: The White woman’s subtle, a-symmetrical beauty arrived at through her own predilections (perhaps even through being sensitive and civilized), the painting of Pierre Bonnard, the architectual team of a Scottish castle, the Katyusha rocket developers and deployers, countless technological advances conducted in joint negotiation - as White creativity always is. These White distinctions depend not only on individualism but also parts of the White system being sublimated enough, or the consensus of good will to be allowed to be sublimated enough not to have to doggedly compete over women all of the time. Sublimation is very much characteristic of some parts of the White system, the White team, as is individualism. The examples could go on, but that is enough. Jim takes a flawed premise but typically makes many worthwhile and brilliant logical extensions on its basis. His discussion of rape and responsibility being an excellent example. Another poignant example is Mike Tyson becoming a wimp if White men’s hands were untied through promulgation of a new notion of a fair fight. Jewish, Mexican and Arab collectivism might be neutralized as well. However, there is a false either/or in saying one contributes or is utterly beholden to those particular skills or one is not White. Moreover, Jim makes a convincing argument that those abilities are valuable and distinctly White, but not a convincing argument that they should be taken to a lethal extreme - that there cannot be lesser punishment and reward in order to cultivate these abilities if the duel is to be a part of a particular White culture at all. Moreover, I am convinced that there are other abilities which not only contribute but are necessary to the survival and well being of Whites against non-Whites. How about the hardness to be rigorously honest? Prior to indignation at this response, I would like to point out that I was charged with having a lot of nerve to say that the “natural duel” had manichean aspects, and that it is dubious in terms of comporting honor. Now I look at this part of The Tale of Lin Tse, and I see that it is manichean indeed. As such, liable to cultivate cunning, trickery, dishonesty, many things despised about Jews:
38
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:38 | # Human individuals and collective human communities are in a sense condemned to both choice and action. An individual (or indeed the polis as a whole) can attempt to avoid such matters, by resolutely standing still, refusing to move and so on. But really it’s no use – for even that stasis is a choice and the individual or the collective community will have acted. Choosing not to act makes not acting a kind of action – something that you or we collectively do. In Schmittian terms the necessity of choosing and acting is not a causal, logical or rational necessity – rather it is both our individual and especially our collective plight: the simple and inexorable fact of the human condition. There are many constraints upon our acts but rarely is there no alternative – be it in any sphere of human activities – economics, law, politics - when someone spouts TINA (there is no alternative) then we are most deeply in the realms of pure ideology. Of course judging if the putative alternatives are better or worse is not without its difficulties. But here the choices and actions of America and Americans seem to be that of a form of attenuated suicide. Based upon the normative force of the abstract universalism of the sovereign ‘free-floating’ individual, all serious forms of the ‘collective particular’ are destroyed in favour of the ‘melting pot’ in which only one’s qualities as an individual legitimately ‘count’ (with presently some special pleading for specific minority groups). All this individual ‘freedom’ held together under the banalities of market-exchange as the ‘glue’ which binds such a régime of ‘universalistic individualism’. America is the ‘death of the West’ on steroids – the death of ethnos (as a collective particular) in the embrace of the demos (as a universal abstract). Yes/no? The last thing Europe needs now is more American ‘individual freedom’ (let alone expressed in pairwise duels). As Dan suggest far better for Europeans to start seriously thinking about a world in which the USA is a ‘post-Western’ state and what this implies for international relations, European politics etc. Europe will have serious choices to make – our present political elites seem incapable of thinking beyond an Atlanticist world-view – a pathetic and wilfully blind choice on their part. 39
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:18 | # Being doing a little research… Now people isn’t this just a little ‘out-there’? Now that’s got to be some kind of parody right? 40
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:05 | # Doing research on Graham Lister’s research, we see from the same source, this description of White Nationalism. A brief review of this source’s other articles demonstrates they have little difficulty with self-congratulatory snark attacks as primary evidence of their “intelligence” and “sophistication”. 41
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:23 | # daniel incisively writes: Now I look at this part of The Tale of Lin Tse, and I see that it [Natural Duel—JAB] is manichean indeed. As such, liable to cultivate cunning, trickery, dishonesty, many things despised about Jews. Thanks for noticing this as it gets to the core of the issue of humans as moral animals. The Manichean view, as I understand it, is very pessimistic about human nature—and Nature in general. The opposite is the case in the present codification of Natural Law. By regarding Nature as the court of final appeal in disputes outside of murder, mayhem, rape, etc., this codification of Natural Law stakes everything on Nature. The cordoning-off of Nature from verbal communications is crucial to the notion of “honor” which I will define as the human animal’s “moral territory”—the domain within which a man actively and consciously participates in Creation. If words are the appeal of last resort in dispute processing, it renders them useless for communication—as clearly words are now becoming with the introduction of grunts, howls and squeals like “racism”, “sexism”, “antisemitism”, etc. as decisive in groups taking forceful action (under the guise of “legal action”). Such reduction of communication to the what amounts to a non-verbal level renders a meeting of minds impossible—hence an honorable society impossible. It is necessary to take disputes that cannot be resolved by honest communication into Nature’s court where “manichean” aspects of evolution are under control of that which created us in the first place—hence is worthy of our trust. 42
Posted by daniel on Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:11 | # Do you see this? This is what we are calling rape, this is what we are calling irresponsible behavior, this is what we are calling leeching behavior, free loading, this is what we are calling violence, etc: we point to these actions and we take this person physically and punish them accordingly, whether through banishment, death or gradient penalties which may indeed limit their appeal in the mating game. You have persuaded me that the duel can have merit in protecting and selecting for more independent sorts of Whites; you’ve provided many excellent, fairly corresponding insights in addition. I do notice that you have circumscribed and delimited the manichaen (tricksters, rule changers) aspect some by confining it to individuals with some rules of engagement - but not entirely. You may even be selecting for it by these means. I can agree that punishment and dissuasion does have to take the form of action, but I do not see why it necessarily has to culminate in a duel of two individuals to the death. Nor that if the duel to the death is not adopted as the way, that it precludes means of protecting and selecting for individualism and independence as a White state may see fit. All in all, however, I hope that this discussion of dueling does not obfuscate your other contributions and prevent what would be very valuable contributions to the White team. I am looking forward to more - great to hear from you, Jim. 43
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 03:00 | # daniel writes: “I do notice that you have circumscribed and delimited the manichaen (tricksters, rule changers) aspect some by confining it to individuals with some rules of engagement - but not entirely. You may even be selecting for it by these means.” No it won’t. These aren’t just “some” rules of engagement, they are very specifically defined to accord with Nature’s rules. Do you believe the laws of nature are “manichean”? If not, then how much closer to reliance only on the laws of nature, as distinct from the verbal configurations that comprise artificial law, could one get than to have two individuals equipped only with devices that they, themselves, could reasonably be expected to fabricate from natural materials and an amount of labor that would not endanger their joy of living? If, on the other hand, you believe that Nature changes its rules—that Nature is a “trickster” then your comment might make sense, but even if the antecedent belief didn’t seem absurd on the face of it, why do you fear the “manichean” tricks of that (Nature) from which you evolved? 44
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:57 | # Posted by James Bowery on April 16, 2012, 10:00 PM | # daniel writes: “I do notice that you have circumscribed and delimited the manichaen (tricksters, rule changers) aspect some by confining it to individuals with some rules of engagement - but not entirely. You may even be selecting for it by these means.” No it won’t. These aren’t just “some” rules of engagement, they are very specifically defined to accord with Nature’s rules.
Well, yes, but only in the same sense that plastic is derived of nature, could you call plastic natural - however, for argument’s sake, we do not normally call it part of the natural biosphere. Man is not outside of nature, but he is somewhat different from other animals in that he is a bit more reflective as to the causes of death, he can learn to learn and has the capacity to change the rules. When technology and or gamesmanship is derived primarily for the purpose of defeating other people and is impervious to interrelatedness and circumspect moral judgment, such that it will change the rules of engagement merely to win (where it could live symbiotically as opposed to parasitically - good distinction that you draw), thus even if by the better, symbiotic judgement of biological and human environment, it should not win - but only wins by technological tour de force * more offensive than defensive in calculation - manicheanism can be construed out of nature. Tour de force is not really a bad term to use here, as it implies an extremely unusual maneuver - in this case, a maneuver that one should not have to be prepared to defend ones self against because it runs contrary to normal concerns of survival both in terms of non-human biology and of the consensus of the population. It seems to me that the capacity for that kind of thinking and trickery would be selected for in this kind of duel.
The three quarters Jew Wittgenstein made the not so fantastic, but true, observation that Robinson Crusoe could not escape language - there is not private language. could one get than to have two individuals equipped only with devices that they, themselves, could reasonably be expected to fabricate from natural materials and an amount of labor that would not endanger their joy of living?
a) but surely the duel itself is not necessarily a joyous episode - though perhaps it would be for you. (By the way, in my darker moods, I have said the very same thing as you, that they may take away my capacity to procreate, but… and that is not necessarily wrong - I do not object to the taking of life, by itself, and the implementation of justice may be joyous indeed, but the duel strikes me as highly impractical. b) the abilities selected for are not necessarily about gauging the right amount of punishment, but merely about who is more ingenious at killing other people. c) and the overall atmosphere created by the looming prospect of being challenged to a duel to the death to which one cannot refuse, does not strike me as joyous. An artist, for example, may not look forward to such a fight. He might take care of himself and more, but not be good at dueling. And just as I do not see language in devil terms, I do not see team work in fighting on behalf of the White race as an evil thing - on the contrary. Here Jim, is my litmus test for who should be accepted into the White race, native European race: those who will fight for it; or at very least, those who will engage in tactical flight (like voting with their feet) to it and for it; those who will engage in stealthy infiltration on its behalf. If they will engage in that much and are otherwise reasonably fair and honest, a reasonable amount of cooperation is enough to keep them alive, if Augustinian devils do not kill them, then they are fit enough. If, in circumstance, fight does not have a reasonable chance of making a difference for Whites then flight is not cowardice. How to judge who is engaged in stealthy infiltration (a ghost wolf) on behalf of Whites might be tricky as it is clandestine activity by definition. In time, people could have a point system to fulfill to demonstrate who was fighting enough or not.
As I have said, it is necessary to draw a distinction between man’s capacity an fabrications as opposed to the rest of nature. but even if the antecedent belief didn’t seem absurd on the face of it, why do you fear the “manichean” tricks of that (Nature) from which you evolved? So, with that distinction it is not so much absurd as it is so to speak - plastic is not outside of nature, but it is different from the nature from which it is derived due to technological manipulations. Of course I am not against technology but where it is valued at the expense of other human qualities and abilities to the detriment of the human ecology, you might say that I could fear manicheanism - as it is a technology for defeating people*, whether it really should win by better forms of humanly stewarded justice or not. * Or, in the case of Africans, it can be a means of expanding their population where it should not (as Jewish thinking has done on their behalf).
45
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:02 | # I should add another thing, my experience tells me not only are there worthwhile Whites who would not do well in this type of combat but also that there are rotten Jews who could do well. 46
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:01 | # Well I simply googled the author behind some of these ‘ideas’...so the website I found might be right on some things and wrong on others. And it was the first to outline the actual content of the background work shaping the OP. BTW I’m not a ‘WN’ (indeed anyone sensible is not - both for sound intellectual and tactical reasons). But seriously human sexual reproduction is developing into that observed within the social Hymenoptera? All of this cluster of thoughts on Jesus, pairwise duels between ‘sovereign’ individuals, babbling away about a very odd concept of ‘natural law’ - is a veritable smorgasbord of shit in my humble view. The claim is that the combination of male ‘sovereigns’ practicing duels to the death, and female ‘sovereigns’ having total control over their reproductive rights, both genetically select for some trait dubbed ‘individual sovereignty’ and will allow this culture to continue indefinitely. This is frankly so silly as social, historical, philosophical, ecological/evolutionary, political, cultural etc., analysis as to be thought a parody or grand piss-take. Should I stop my reading around Schmitt and his ideas or rather take up the study of how Jesus and the early Christians attempted to restore ‘individual sovereignty’ in the face of a range of hostile group entities? Did Jesus ‘secretly’ also kick-ass in some man on man duels to the death? I suppose one could have a discussion on the concept of the individual subject in Christian thought in comparative perspective with other schools of thought but really it has to be at a much more elevated and nuanced level than presented here. But carry on - I don’t really have anything positive to say on this topic other than to wonder why people seemingly take such viewpoints as outlined in the OP seriously. What type of kool-aid are you all drinking? Extra fruity favour? 47
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:32 | # I don’t really have anything positive to say on this topic other than to wonder why people seemingly take such viewpoints as outlined in the OP seriously. I personally do not take the premise of duels to the death, the hyper concern for instigating the evolution of individualism nor talk in terms of sovereigns etc, seriously. However, Jim has not only demonstrated in other places that he has some interesting ideas to contribute, but even here, in elaborations on what I maintain is a flawed premise. That is why I bother despite my distaste for the topic of the OP. And I for one, am not talking about Jesus.
What is wrong with the term White nationalism? It seems to me that if White means of native European extraction and a recognition of its discreet subdivisions, its nations, that is highly descriptive of what we are, or should be about. The only alternative to global mulattoism other than White nationalism would perhaps be White regionalism (as Norman Lowell proposes) and the similar, but perhaps even smaller units of White counties, that Bowery et al propose be initiated in an implicit manner.
48
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:37 | # Daniel writes: “Man is not outside of nature… I don’t see language as the dragon that you do” If you insist that the laws of man are of the same class as the laws of nature then you’re committing the error of which I have been falsely accused: Propositional insubordination to Nature: In particular when the accuser is a Nationalist, insubordination to the Nation as a society of men bound by consanguinity (eg: common phenotypes) and congeniality (eg: common language)—rather than by a proposition (a “Nation” State or “proposition nation”). If you are merely claiming that technology is of the same class as the laws of man, then your argument is not as boldly in error, but it is nevertheless in denial of the critical distinction between the aboriginal creative consciousness’s thoughts and man-as-creator’s thoughts. Man’s thoughts expressed in language, are propositions—propositions as opposed to mere “speech acts”, such as “YEOW!”, or pseudo-propositions like “You’re a RACIST!!!”. The illusion of the separation between a man’s creative consciousness and the aboriginal creative consciousness is, in fact, the self-discipline that is the essence of Man as organic being. Eastern philosophy denounces not only this, Man’s, being but separate beings themselves in: “Life is suffering.” Western philosophy celebrates this in the creation of life as seen by the Creator as “good” and as Man’s being in “God’s image” as seen by the Creator as “good and very good”. If organic beings are considered as thoughts of the aboriginal creative consciousness, then a “being” is, in that universal subjectivity (what Eastern philosophy calls “nirvana”—the absence of the “illusion” of “life”) a thought of Nature—a kind of “Natural Proposition”. Man’s propositions are, under Eastern philosophy, of the same class of illusion. This is because his propositions are representations of his thoughts. The central discipline of Man, however, is the denial of that unity. A tool or device is a “proposition” only in the empirical sense. Its value is neither true nor false, but exists only in its so-called “utility” as evidenced in its “use”. If it is this “empiricism” of which you accuse me, then I stand guilty as charged, but by this very act of accusation, you draw the critical distinction between language and technology—between thought (theory) and actuality (experiment). 49
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:51 | # Hey, that’s pretty good - do you see why I don’t mind talking to this guy, provoking him a bit and drawing him out, Graham? Some to chew on there…back to it later.
If you insist that the laws of man are of the same class as the laws of nature then you’re committing the error of which I have been falsely accused. No, I believe that I was very clear to say that language has capacities which are non empirical and advantageous for marshalling a protracted conceptualization of the class for hypothetical use, to be tested against more empirical procedure from time to time as they will be like it or not. But - there it is on a continuum, internally related - not separated in some Cartesian sense. Propositional insubordination to Nature: In particular when the accuser is a Nationalist, insubordination to the Nation as a society of men bound by consanguinity (eg: common phenotypes) and congeniality (eg: common language)—rather than by a proposition (a “Nation” State or “proposition nation”). I have never been guilty of this sort of thing. In fact, I am trying to get this DNA nation thing published (here or elsewhere) to begin clarifying just that sort of issue, making the nation accountable to the empirical reality. I am “guilty” as charged too. If you are merely claiming that technology is of the same class as the laws of man, then your argument is not as boldly in error, but it is nevertheless in denial of the critical distinction between the aboriginal creative consciousness’s thoughts and man-as-creator’s thoughts. You lose me a bit with the god stuff - you are the one who is supposed to be too empirical, remember?: I tend to see god as none of my business; rather speculative anyway, if not a poor excuse. Man’s thoughts expressed in language, are propositions—propositions as opposed to mere “speech acts”, such as “YEOW!”, or pseudo-propositions like “You’re a RACIST!!!”. That, however, may be a useful distinction - and you may be right that I am not utilizing that distinction enough. But I should advise against getting caught up in Searles, speech act theory, Chomsky, etc.
There can and has been utility to Cartesian duality, a discipline as you call it, which tends to be rejected by Eastern philosophy. Ok, but we are better now - as GW says, we are on our own. It is up to us to move beyond our predecessors - we need to
It goes roughly: Dogen I am not a Buddhist, and that is not the exact statement, but pretty close - it was of significant help to me in my journey of White racial advocacy.
Sounds good - but there can still be debate about how the application and results of that tool’s use counts among the folks (hopefully genetically close enough folks to satisfy our empirical rigor) - even if its use does gets certain brute, factual results. I can accept the distinction that you draw (though not void of internal relation), and I have nothing against empiricism (on the contrary, I insist on it) provided that it is used with sense enough to see that it is in continuum with language and that allows for the breadth necessary for concepts, hypotheses, classifications upon which it which it operates and verifies.
50
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:56 | # John Dewey (1933) outlined the general process of the systematic scientific approach in five steps as: 1) An indeterminate situation, a “felt” difficulty; an imbalance. 2) problematization - the diagnosis and definition of the difficulty, or specifications of the problem; 3) possible solutions, hunches, hypotheses; 4) thinking and selecting the most appropriate hunch; 5) testing the hypothesis, experiment to find out if solution actually works Operational verifiability through repeatability should yield measurable results and warrantable assertability. This could correspond well with a hermeneutic process, a moving back and forth from the more protracted and speculative expanses, the hypotheses of language, and back to the empirical testing, the operational verifiability which yields warrantably assertable results. Not that I’m going to teach anyone about scientific method, but just to say that it can work with non-Cartesian premises and in a way to which I am not averse but well disposed.
51
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:46 | # James, I’d welcome a clearer comment from you on the mysterious publisher Sovereign Press whom Graham unearthed. Did you know of them, or anyone involved with them? Were you aware that, superfically at least, others were pursuing similar ideas to your own in respect to, let us say, societal rigour? 52
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:08 | #
This is what I mean by “genius”. Can someone explain in clear language what is being said in these paragraphs I have copied? One good result of studying law is that it forces one to take linguistic precision seriously. 53
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:25 | # GW, “Sovereign Press” is cited as the origin of the text given by the first two links in the original post. Scroll to the bottom of those pages. My only interactions with Sovereign Press have been to purchase books from them, and to send a query about the current status of the experimental community as of winter of 2001—with a response that, as of then, they were acting merely as a publishing house. They have published nothing new since the mid-90s, which is about the time the founder died according to this site. Since they do make a point of being a “secluded” community, and of there being several such secluded communities, it is going a bit far to infer that the described communities no longer exist. Since then, some of their books have turned up as online electronic books available as torrents. Probably the most informative one, regarding Sovereign Press’s origin, is John Harland’s “Brave New World: A Different Projection”. 54
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:26 | # I’ve mentioned before that IDF has constant contact with foreign military gentlemen. so here is what I am hearing from semi-reliable rumor traffickers. The whole hullabaloo out there in Cartagena was caused by two African-American secret-service guys who shared one girl; then in the morning, tried to split (between them) one ticket; while the girl was saying she had earned two tickets (a ticket is all of US$50). She wasn’t out of the room by the 7am curfew; hotel bellboys were sent up check her safety; afros wouldn’t open the door; local cops were called, who called the Embassy. Embassy guys had no choice but to telegraph Washington because now there was a written police record.
55
Posted by Dave on Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:15 | # James, In your previous post you talked about using the Natural Duel to unleash physical resistance against The Powers That Be. I think one of your reasons for using the Natural Duel was that more traditional, direct physical resistance wouldn’t be possible because of the state’s overwhelming police and military power and its prisons filled with hostile ethnic gangs where Whites are a minority and preyed upon. But what about Europe? Breivik faces just 21 years in prison. And Norwegian prisons are actually quite comfortable, and I don’t think Whites there are overwhelmingly outnumbered by hostile ethnic gangs like in the US prisons. Wouldn’t more traditional, direct physical resistance be feasible there, since there’s less of a risk in terms of punishment for guys who join to resist? If not, wouldn’t using Natural Duel to unleash physical resistance also be more feasible to start off in Europe since guys who participated would be risking less in terms of punishment by the state for dueling or laying down judgment against duel-dodgers? 56
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:35 | # Dave, Your argument makes sense, although the conditions are bound to vary significantly between European nations. There are other reasons it would probably work better in Nordic countries—not the least of which is the late date of abandonment of the old Norse law and the relatively high density of genetic predispositions corresponding to that law. 57
Posted by Churchland on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:57 | # Dave makes a good point. Here’s an article on Norway’s posh prisons: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment—catch-UK.html
It’s quite pleasant and a more comfortable standard of living than many young White males today have and can expect to have as things deteriorate even further. The only problem is that the US Fed Gov has increasingly gone global especially over the past 10 years since 9/11. It has secret prisons around the world and has asserted for itself legal authority to assassinate people including Americans anywhere around the world. It could end up superseding a country like Norway’s authority and punishments for any rebels.
58
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:17 | # Churchland@57 That is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Period. Would never have believed it. I wish I were Norwegian! 59
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:37 | # [url=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTI>Neighborhood watch shooter released from Fla. jail</a>
<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295919/new-black-panthers-unpunished-threats-john-fund”]The New Black Panthers’ Unpunished Threats[/url]
The article goes on to point out a quote from “Attorney General” Holder which bears directly on the death penalty for refusing a challenge to Natural Duel:
From “Germania” by Tacitus:
From “Ivar the Viking” by Paul Du Chaillu:
60
Posted by Orson on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:16 | # @ James Bowery What are you suggesting? Are you implying that Holder and the black mob are following the natural dual code or something by targeting Zimmerman? 61
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:56 | # Oh, no. Not at all. What they are doing is playing with fire. For example, when Holder calls founding stock Americans “cowards” he is saying to their genes “If you don’t challenge me to Natural Duel for calling you a ‘coward’ then you are such a shameful “nithing” that you should be pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog to be buried out of men’s sight.” This is a psychophysiological attack on founding stock Americans. When he then turns around and doesn’t even say anything, let alone act, when someone puts out a bounty for someone “dead or alive”, he is asking for someone to answer his epithet of “coward” with a challenge to Natural Duel accompanied by the statement:
Of course, we all know what he’s going to do: Ignore it or possibly scoff. But what if there is a milieu—not an identifiable organization nor any specifically identifiable people—that executes “cowards” who decline a challenge to Natural Duel? Of course, we all know what he’s going to do then: Imprison if not murder the person challenging him to Natural Duel, and probably run amok imprisoning anyone (most founding stock Americans) who looks like they might feel he, the “Attorney General” is the “coward” who should be “buried out of men’s sight.” At this point the principles of asymmetric warfare are active. 62
Posted by Orson on Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:36 | # Well they’ve been “playing with fire” since the 90s when they started hyping the “militia threat”. If anything they seem to be goading people and to want a reaction so they can use all those extra powers, police powers, weapons (local police all have high powered SWAT teams and weapons now), drones, FEMA camps they’ve gained recently. 63
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:16 | # Well aside from the fact that Waco and Ruby Ridge didn’t turn out the way they wanted, the real issue here is the epithet “coward” or “cowardly”. What they’ve done with “terrorism” has been to cast it as “cowardly” because in people’s subconscious there are two “men” in a “fight” and one of them isn’t “fighting fair”. Now follow that train of thought if you can in the present counterfactual. 64
Posted by Orson on Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:32 | # So by their recent behavior - seizing extra illegal powers for themselves, going after people around the world and imprisoning and assassinating them, et cetera - they are increasingly casting themselves as “cowardly” in people’s subconscious and as people who aren’t “fighting fair”? 65
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:51 | # No. Their use of the word “cowardly” to describe those they are going after is the key to their immunity for all those actions. In the ways of our forefathers—the ways bred into our being—the insult of “coward” meant one of two things: 1) a natural duel, or Any actions against a pariah/nithing/outlaw are legitimate. In the logic of this evolutionary psychology, Holder called us “cowards”. Now, go back and realize that the original question you asked me was about Holder et al, and try and pick up the train of thought by re-reading my counterfactual response to that original question of yours. 66
Posted by Orson on Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:20 | #
As soon as 9/11 happened, the politicians and pundits were out calling the 9/11 hijackers and their targeted terrorists more generally “cowards”.
So Holder et al end up triggering a war? Do I have the counterfactual correct? What do you mean by “At this point the principles of asymmetric warfare are active”? 67
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:34 | # Yes, Holder et al end up triggering asymmetric warfare IF AND ONLY IF we call them on their use of “coward” against us by demonstrating that it is they who are the true cowards. They are pushing our genetic buttons—buttons they don’t, themselves, have—about “cowardice”. Their genes aren’t about honor, courage, heroism or anything of the sort. Their genes are about pushing buttons on other people’s genes—specifically our genes. In your FEMA-camp, martial-law, etc. scenarios you legitimately raise as a condition they wish to impose upon us if we usee forceful resistance to our people being destroyed, it is their portrayal of us as “cowards” that excuses all manner of abuses against the populace which shares our genetic contempt for cowardice. It undermines the morale of those people to resist and provides cover for traitors to act on behalf of the tyranny. Asymmetric warfare is impossible under those conditions because the populace upon which asymmetric warfare depends will be turned against us. The canon fodder they use to do their dirty work is genetically willing to cross the world and kill millions of random people because there might be a “coward” or two lurking among them. They are, likewise, genetically willing to fill up all those FEMA camps with their own kin who might be or might be harboring “cowards”. If you don’t address this slander head on, by pushing the genetic buttons that expose them as the true cowards, then you may as well give up on the whole idea of asymmetric warfare. Post a comment:
Next entry: Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Graeme on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:29 | #
Why does the natural duel have to be instituted before the enforcement squads? Why not just institute the enforcement squads?
Or once the enforcement squads are in place following the natural duel, why not remove the natural duel and just have the enforcement squads?