Didactic Discourse : Dugin to Dogs

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:45.

Søren: Good comment on Dies Irae BTW, but I was disappointed that you didn’t mention the Subject without Confines.
I hope it will appear later (because you said that in chat)!

me: Well, I think I need to understand the notion a bit better to put it out as my own statement regarding subject/object, dialectic, etc.

Søren: Yes. Actually it will be better if you use that in a post of your own anyway…
You do have the Dugin essay right?

me: I’ll look at it again if you link me to it.

Søren: http://eurosiberia.wetpaint.com/page/SUBJECT+WITHOUT+CONFINES?t=anon

me: Dugin writes: “Having lost its metaphysical legitimacy, the aggression became to be perceived as unlawful transgressing the integrity of what was proclaimed the supreme value in itself - a human individual, society, being etc. Hence follows all “natural right” tendency, which has been developed starting from the times of Rousseau. For the existential expansion discontinued being metaphysically justified, the victim put in its own claims to the “total security”, that is to the artificial and raised to the highest ethical imperative defense from aggression.”
me: This is where things get dicey due to the fact that multicellular organisms are the ultimate “eusocial societies”, consisting, as they do, of billions of clones all working together as one subject.
This is why I tend to side with the Valorians when it comes to the ideal of single combat.
The Old Norse law was that any group of armed men was a super-organism that should be killed by any and all who witnessed it.
St. Olaf was known as “Olaf the Law Breaker” because he violated this law to become king and impose JudeoChristianity.
Dragons… Serpents…
Kill them.

Søren: And we can bring that back once we live in a world of men who are fit for such a world, but imitating the future isn’t the way to midwife it.

me: Of course not. You missed my point about designating these superorganisms as “the enemy” which justified ALL to attack them.

Søren: Assist me in midwifing the future.

me: Hiding and swarming seems to have been the defense of the Old Norse and Goths. Perhaps also the Dorians.

Søren: Discourse is War. You don’t understand that all the way. It doesn’t mean “let’s only talk and whine and work in secret.” It means: anyone who says that discourse is one thing and war is another is using discourse to war against us.
This is the answer to Habermas.

me: Well, it is certainly true that when the appeal of last resort is not single combat to the death, discourse loses its proper biological role.
Words become mere arms.

Søren: My DSL line filter is banjaxed—every phone call cycles the connection.

me: There may be an extent to which dogs have played a part in this.

Søren: Do you mean like cats and toxoplasmosis?

me: Less parasitic and more symbiotic. You know the old thing about “white men and their dogs”... well ever notice how many negroid races have these huge nostrils? Think about pheromones and smell. Then think about hunting parties.
Subsaharan Africa has sufficient natural carrying capacity that they would form hunting parties with each other. In Europe—not enough food to go around—so dogs teamed up with their masters. The dogs had a superior sense of smell. This reduced the evolutionary pressure on Euroman’s sense of smell and this, in turn, rendered him less able to discriminate kin from nonkin at an atavistic level. It also rendered him more of an “individual” biologically.

Søren: Is there evidence of differential osmic ability? I’ve never heard that.

me: Its my hypothesis.

Søren: Put it on MR.

me: Specifically, I hypothesize that when it comes to human pheromone discrimination, most probably the MHC-related smells, Euroman (or any people heavily dependent on dogs for hunting) will under-perform.

me: Moreover, I suspect that the amygdala and other emotional centers that had been linked to pheromone discrimination, are now susceptible to word manipulation far more than in other races.
So words have “smells” such as “connotations” etc. that are used in discourse particularly when there is no single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing to clear the semantic decks for communication. Words like “racism” etc. are essentially engineered human pheromones.

me: http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/elephants-smell-the-difference-between-human-ethnic-groups/
This makes racial epithets perhaps a more crucial aspect of our survival than many have thought—the “smell"of words may be more important than their meaning in an environment where we are not free to preemptively kill gangs nor are we free to challenge individuals to mortal combat in the law of the jungle.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:29 | #

Extremely interesting theory.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:21 | #

Words like “racism” etc. are essentially engineered human pheromones.

Now that’s an interesting idea.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:04 | #

James,

How does your libertarian freedom to kill gangs turn out not against a few dumb black gangbangers but against a real player? Do you think that, under the system you propose, said player will feel more disposed to wipe out possible threats or less? How can you protect yourself against being wiped out unless that protection is afforded by the anonymity of state operatives acting in your stead?

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:48 | #

GW: A great deal of action you propose is predicated on a change in ethos, is it not? If I am afforded the same luxury, we can go from a state of affairs where, currently a bunch of “individuals” witness another individual being beaten by a group, and react as a mob to stop it, to a state of affairs where the mere presence of a gang is seen as a perversion of nature to be dealt with as an animal control problem. Under that ethos, a great many, if not all, of the tactics employed by gangs would be impotent.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:25 | #

GW: “How does your libertarian freedom to kill gangs turn out not against a few dumb black gangbangers but against a real player?”

If Whites are subjected regularly to the kind of violent organized crime we see in Mexico the obvious answer would be ‘voluntary’ (voluntary in the sense that if one did not ‘volunteer’ they would be denied protection) paramilitary groups that put a lockdown on White enclaves. In that sort of scenario the answer to “real player[s]” would be death squads.

If White people are terrorized beyond a certain threshold it would then be the responsibility of pro-White death squads to liquidate all known gang members. Much more efficient than swarming them, at least in the short term.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:57 | #

How do you know they are gang members if not by witnessing them congregating as a gang? If the ethos is to take action against that biological configuration the way you would against a man raping a baby in public, what’s the big deal? They’re dead already. No death squads needed.

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:29 | #

JB: “Moreover, I suspect that the amygdala and other emotional centers that had been linked to pheromone discrimination, are now susceptible to word manipulation far more than in other races.”

European societies’ word structure part that does not correspond to reality/ truth, is linked to parasite avoidance and hostility avoidance/ upholding the social structure.

E.g. X says Y’s articles are excellent. Y says that he is not that great. X says sure he is. Y is insulting X’s ability to judge/ think and attenuating his positive comment; why? Because subconsiously Y fears that X’s words are a secret claim to his resources, time and energy, that there will be requests following. Also X’s words could raise Y status above X’s if accepted, thus reducing the solidarity/ friendship between them, and Y may wish to preserve solidarity. X’s final comments are meant to “negotiate” a compromise.

Whatever legitimate interests people have, they can’t be advanced honestly because of parasite avoidance. In addition many people interests are limitless, overabundant and/or parasitic (Scientific term; wanting or taking resources without giving anything back or giving too few resources back; no reciprocity).

Previous example contained social structure upholding, but one more common example about it. People can’t openly say what think about other people, e.g. X can’t say that Y is ugly, because he tries to uphold friendship / social structure/ solidarity.

This creates a situation where people are honest primarily in those situations, where there are no choices or where the things said are impersonal. Thus large part of people’s thinking/ talking/ writing is dishonest, often utopian, egalitarian, universalist and cornucopian. This is made worse by the fact that utopian etc. thinking gives false comfort, like baby sucking his thumb, which don’t give milk.

I probably don’t have to explain what happens to a society whose members are not able to assess important things realistically.

“So words have “smells” such as “connotations” etc. that are used in discourse particularly when there is no single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing to clear the semantic decks for communication. Words like “racism” etc. are essentially engineered human pheromones.”

- Why not instead create communities, where all psychological, action /work/ activism and social arrows point to pro-European direction and where para-European arrows’ influence strenghten pro-European arrows. Now most of them in society are engineered to point to para-European direction.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:16 | #

Actually I just remembered something I did as a teenager that is relevant:

A bunch of us were down at the football field when it struck me that it would be absurd to just start marching around, single file, with exaggerated stomping. So I started out stomping around and got a friend of mine to follow and pretty soon we were all this one big snake stomping, single-file, through the local college campus. As we went, it seems others got the joke, and started falling in line. I think we ended up with something like 50 or so people just “grimly” stomping in unison, single file, without any reason for doing so—traveling around the campus, parks and sports fields. It was a hilarious work of spontaneous performance art.

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:44 | #

“St. Olaf was known as “Olaf the Law Breaker” because he violated this law to become king and impose JudeoChristianity. “

I see the CHRISTOPHOBES are out in full force lately on MR>

St. Olav was the rightful king of Norway, and he did NOT impose ‘JUdeoChristianity’. There is no such thing.

You are either an apostate Christ-killing Jew, or you are a Christian.

What passes for this hybrid oxymoron today are CULTISTS, worshipping a racial supremacist cult known collectively as Jews, and their creed, Talmudism.

But this is NOT the religion of the Norse, of the pre-schism Church, or of St. Olaf.

If anything, what St. Olaf was, was ORTHODOX. Which religion clearly sees itself as the ‘supercession’ of ANY and ALL forms of Biblical Hebraicism, which never was ‘Jewish’ as it is defined today.

I don’t call Marx an Englishman, even though he lived there. He’s a Jew, and a half-German, if that.
To call him an Englishman, is rougly equivalent to calling St. Olaf a “JudeoChristian.”

It’s an insult to Christianity, just as it is an insult to call Marx a Brit!

Posted by a Finn on Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:23 | #

I wrote: “Why not instead create communities, where all psychological, action /work/ activism and social arrows point to pro-European direction and where para-European arrows’ influence strenghten pro-European arrows. Now most of them in society are engineered to point to para-European direction.”

I add : This does not mean stomping in unison in single file. Pro-European means extremely many possible things and requires many different things to become concrete phenomenom. Readers here might find this picture helpful; old western communities resemble in many ways the pro-European communities I have in mind, but the clock is not turned back in time, instead it is turned to the future.

Yes, pro-European has limits. E.g. radical nominalist postmodern communities are not pro-European.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:17 | #

Fr. John, I don’t know how you define “JudeoChristianity” but to me one of the sure signs of the “Judeo” part is theocratic enforcement of belief ala Moses coming down from the mountain and slaughtering the worshipers of the golden calf or the imprisonment of heretics who question the dogmas of Holocaustianity.