|
|
|
Incommensurability and Ecological Niche Theory vs. Non-Equality Applied incommensurability, ecological niche theory and kindred metaphors; as opposed to non-equality, universal Darwinism and other objectivist criteria. Another issue on which I believe that I have made a fairly original contribution, or application to our struggle, as it were, is in noting that our right-wing are committing a crucial error when they insist that at the heart of our problem is the paradigm of equality and inequality – specifically, chiding “the” left’s imposition of “equality” because we are not equal. However, harping on the fact that there is “no such thing as equality” is beyond being fairly trivial information, it is recklessly dangerous and destructive. Poor right-wingers, the crucial matter is not equality, but non-samess, a qualitative issue. (1) Perhaps I have had a privileged vantage on this “epistemological” blunder having never been immersed in Marxism. Growing up in a fine, middle-class New Jersey town, but not a university town, I rarely heard anybody claiming that they wanted “equality” – perhaps just a few times by feminists was all. As I have mentioned previously, in those formative years, I never felt comfortable identifying with either the left or the right, though if pressed, I certainly would have claimed to lean to the right. I understand that “The Left – Right” distinction began with the French Court. Perhaps readers know that I do not use the terms so much by tradition of origin or even by recent cultural strictures but rather by the practicality of ordinary use, in particular for their application to White interests. In fact, I have observed in those who begin their analysis with The French Revolution, tracing our problems as beginning there, that they tend to adopt an unfruitful and unsatisfying critique, as they seem to consequently problematize liberalism in terms of equality / inequality. It was a felt response at first. For example, when trying to discuss some of the things that I felt were problematic about “rights” and “liberalism” with an English colleague, Ed, I got a nearly violent, knee-jerk reaction: “No there is Not!” (viz., such a thing as equality); similarly, the lovely Anna Thomson, with whom I walked through the streets of Paris, piped-up, almost automatically, “rights (errantly) propose that everyone is equal.” Crucial matters are being left out of this glib assessment. In what seems to be typical of right-wing traditionalism, where they do not render this empty charge of nothing being equal, inadvertently ushering in its corollary, an arrogant instigation to competition, they have decided that the whole right-left distinction is either one of their hair-brained leftist conspiracy theories, or no longer a useful distinction at all. But it is precisely because it is useful, in practical terms, to adopt the moniker of leftist classification for Whites, that I suppressed the gag-reflex in venturing its application over and against long-standing abusive misrepresentation of the terms by Jews and foolishly reactionary right-wingers. Specifically, if one observes its ordinary every day function, without the fangling academic obfuscations, to call ourselves The White Left provides a nifty way of organizing ourselves, Whites as a social group: it resolves one of our largest problems at this point - getting organized over-and-against individualism. With that, providing the classification of ourselves as an accountable group, we naturally distinguish potential antagonists: traitorous elites of our own (internationalists, hyper-capitalists, sundry snobs, etc), the antagonistic interests of non-White elites, such as Jewish elites; of course we also distinguish low level traitors, i.e., those who would bring scabs in (scabs being non-Whites or antagonistic Whites), as well as non-White scabs who would try to impose upon our union of their own accord; more, the impact of non-Whites in general on our classification would be taken into account; finally, the reflexive effects that our own patterns may be having upon environment, including social relations with out-groups. That is, White Classification does not only order accountability, it neatly ties in with an ecological stewardship of our people’s sundry qualities, as expressed in both the lifespan process and just as crucially, in the processes of our evolution. I have proposed that what our right has been calling “the left” is not our left, not a White left for our people - it is the left of other groups or imposed “liberalism” upon us. Now then, for anybody who thinks that I am merely arrogant, listening to the Golden Dawn podcasts is humbling enough. Fortunately (2), for me, it is not about competition, I want us (we White Nationalists or sincere, good-willed White advocates of any stripe) to win. However, it is true that The Golden Dawn, while identifying as “third position” (neither left nor right), also identify as “Christian” and count among their greatest enemies, “the left.” By now you know what I am going to say regarding what they call the left – it is really the Jewish left or Jewish leftist advocacy of non-Whites and pernicious liberalism, as far as Whites are concerned. We can avoid much misunderstanding by merely placing the word “White” before “Left.” That clarifies to a large extent who we are advocating in our union and who we are not. As for Christianity, I believe Humphreys has provided a sufficient account in that most of us simply do not find the Christian narratives credible. Golden Dawn or not, a huge percentage of Whites are not going to be rallied by Christianity. While I am not in the business of attacking Christians, I am speaking to persons looking for a faith in us. There is much work to do in order to know how best to coordinate with Christians, but the matter otherwise tends to distract from the important work of clarifying our necessary moral order, one reliably grounded in reality; toward that end, there does seem to be a large consensus around the 14 Words as a fulcrum. There shouldn’t be much opposition to a large measure of Aristotle to go along with that either. Nevertheless, from what I know of Golden Dawn so far, they are remarkable. I hope their adoption of these things, “the left” as bad guys, Christianity as organizing moral order, do not create problems for them in time, though they might. Given their success and how on-target they seem to be otherwise, these appear fairly petty criticisms. Even so, I also hope that other White advocates who might model themselves on Golden Dawn are not entangled by these confusions. With those counter-arguments addressed, I would like to come back to the point of qualitative differences that make a difference - kinds of distinctions that I hope will provide a step in advancing the ontology project. That is to say I think that I am right to continue to think about how notions of incommensurability and ecological niche theory may apply in demarcating and servicing differences that make a qualitative difference between and among racial classifications; that would be opposed to equality/non-equality and kindred objectivist platforms such as Darwinism. Incommensurablity Incommensurability should be a more technical and precise way of talking about non-sameness as opposed to inequality (see note 1, below). Of course I have long been aware of Thomas Khun’s notion of incommensurate paradigms and how they might trigger “scientific revolutions.” This idea of how a logic of action and meaning can be provoked by anomaly, informed and contextualized by difference, revolutionized perhaps or simply go a different way as it cannot match the logics of action and meaning of another idea or group of practitioners has made its way from the harder sciences to attempted applications in the social sciences. Naturally, I had seen potential in this for us as Whites, but predictably, I was obstructed from any academic application as such. I was only re-awakened to its potential significance to our survival as Whites when at a conference a Jewish academic gave a lecture describing his trepidations as to potential abuse of the notion of incommensurability in social application. I was thinking what you are thinking – if he thinks it’s potentially dangerous then there must be something good there, in the notion of incommensurability, for Whites. One of the best things about resigning from the pursuit of a Ph.D. and its status is that one can pretty much say what they like without the consequences that an academic might endure. In fact, upon this freedom, I went ahead and connected the idea with one of our iconoclastic academics – the late Philippe Rushton (something I cannot imagine doing in the academic setting I was in). Rushton provided perfect examples of incommensurability in at least two cases: One being the different age of sexual maturity between Asians, Blacks and Whites. Another being offspring strategies – Blacks having more babies but giving them less care, Whites having fewer children but giving them more care. Examples besides Rushton’s should multiply. Bowery often refers to the White man’s capacity for technology as an important difference from the non-White’s reliance on gang strategies. That should correspond with incommensurate expressions of manhood. White men, being more sublimated, channel their energies creatively toward more protracted concerns of their way of life, whereas Blacks might excel in episodic endeavors such as sports (or ill-prepared procreation and a corollary spread of disease and poverty). No doubt many other examples of incommensurability may be drawn. With rigorous attention this should enhance the ontology project as it focuses on the qualitative description of Whites. The important implication is that the races, the classifications, are not interchangeable, not integrated without destruction of at least one profoundly different system. Naturally, this would also impact world biodiversity. Losing a race would be similar to losing a species or a rain forest. That our extinction is far more serious should be a moot point, as it would entail the loss of we, a people who might so much as talk about our existence, our environment and its stewarding. Nevertheless, I do not take it for granted, as the same lovely Anna Thomson left my jaw dropped when she claimed not to care - “well so what?” - if England is overrun. However, if one does care about the ongoing existence of their people, it is necessary to take discourse outside of the modernist paradigm in which all systems are universally and readily comparable. Whereas arguing that there is no such thing as equality takes us right back into the realm of facile comparison, as if we are all operating on the same criteria. The consequences of this vain comparison – ignoring specialized differences between the classifications - its hubris, are of two kinds potentially: we are defeated, as in the cases of the technologically gifted Duryea whose wife wound-up with Black Jack Johnson, and the tough-enough for normal human endeavor, Tommy Burns, being humiliated in the ring by him. On the other extreme, where we obnoxiously lord our quantifiable “superiority” over others, particularly to the point of abuse and exploitation, we are quite likely to breed resentment and calculated counter-attack, instigating competition between people who need not to be competing; likely taking them away from their disparaged specialties to rigidly engage in reciprocally escalating competition; one which might not surprisingly end in ill-conceived violence and war. A characteristic difference here is between the more pernicious forms of colonialism and imperialistic wars as opposed to wars where we seek to defend our own and our habitats. You can see what might become of the concept of marginals and diversity, had they unfolded unperverted by Jewish academics and planners who turned these concepts on their heads by proclaiming those outside or antagonistic to the class, as “marginals.” By contrast, marginals within the White Class may represent qualitative reserves of diversity and different points of attention along the parameters of our class, rather than a rupturing, paradigmatic shift altogether. In fact, they potentially have more reason to see to the maintenance of the class as they can be a bit more in need of its cooperative alliance. That is all the more reason to provide incentive to participate by folks who are not the best, strongest, or in all respects up to the mark at a particular time. If we can look upon differences among and between our classes as qualitative rather than making false, quantitative comparisons, then we have a potentially symbiotic, less conflictual means to negotiate among ourselves and between out-groups. In the background however are assumptions of Darwinism that competition necessarily leads to things better. But I wonder: perhaps creativity stems as much, if not more, from repose of Being, thought and taking what is granted to heart? It is not only the objective criteria of Darwinism that presumes the necessity of competition across the board. There does seem to be a problem of pandering to the natural female wish to maintain, as much as possible, a one-up position in mate selection - thus to incite genetic competition in order to maintain that position. To a large, if not short-term, extent it must be true that where there is more competition and stress between males, the position of females would become more powerful in society. They would also have more power in mate selection. As previously noted, the pandering to broach racial bounds will increase this position, at least in the short-term. Perhaps it is up to White men to convince White women that that is short-sighted indeed to want to maintain this position in exaggerated form and that they will not be stuck with unworthy mates if they come to the table with a little more fairness, cooperation and long-term interests in mind. Ecological Niche Theory …evidently provides another means of negotiation other than non-equality, Darwinist objectivity and universal comparison. As I understand it, there are two fundamentally competing camps of ecological niche theory and a third that proposes, in fact calls itself, neutral ecological niche theory. In one ecological niche theory, organisms, lets say racial groups, differentiate largely as a consequence of competition with one another. In another ecological niche theory, groups differentiate largely by means of drifting, not necessarily conflictually, perhaps even amicably to different resource beds, and develop specialized adaptations in accordance to those situated resources. The neutral theory, which seems likely, presumes both factors may be at work in niche development. Niche theory may have utility in White survival as a means of increasing symbiosis among Indigenous European Nationals; while highlighting our difference from non-native Europeans in a way that might effectively oust their imposition on our genetic nation. Organizing our cooperative union would evidently be the first priority. In the use of niche theory toward symbiosis among European peoples, I have suggested looking at European peoples as a full ecosystem, a complete organism, with some nations serving buffering functions, some nations serving highly specialized functions etc. That is to say, all were evolved as part of a system and all necessary to its overall health and survival. I have submitted that that may be part of the problem that America is having: it may lack some of those buffering adaptations that continental Europeans have evolved against non-Whites and leave an awkward interface in the void. Another metaphor I have proposed in reconciliation to the symbiotic aspects of niche theory for Europeans is that the various European nations may be likened to a body and its parts or organs. It is a crude metaphor to begin, but as it may be continually refined, it might take on optimal metaphoric forms: to begin, lets try some rather fantastic examples such as France being the gastrointestinal tract, Belarus like the liver, Germany being like the cerebral-cortex (I had originally posited the brain, but when a colleague suggested the cerebral cortex, it rang even more true of the German propensity for being long on logic and sometimes coming up a bit short on patterned judgment). Anyway, you get the idea. That each organ or part provides fairly incommensurate niche functions that are both discreet but nevertheless fairly co-evolved and necessary in relation to the whole system of European peoples and habitats. Respecting one another European peoples as such - as necessary and not in competition to be measurably compared - each performing niche functions, we might turn our fight outward to non-European imposition. In regard of niches, segmentation in biological creatures is worth looking into as a pattern analogy. It may in fact, correspond with a final metaphor that I would like to mention in service of the ecology of European niches and their symbiosis - the metaphor of the ship and its compartments. I heard of this analogy from TT, which is a bit ironic because he rejects nationalism and looks upon all native Europeans as potentially a part of the White race. I appreciate the decency in that outlook and its practicality, particularly in regard to the American circumstance. However, in Europe, I can immediately see the German, Pole or Englishman asking wryly, so you want to do away with that pesky little border, do you? The metaphor of the compartmentalized ship takes the view that all Europeans are in this survival game together on the whole; but it likes our chances better if we maintain the nations as airtight compartments. That way there is less chance of a mud invasion spilling over to other compartments and more opportunity to help bail-out the muddied nations if the other nations, having been sectioned-off, remain healthy, sovereign and White. Moreover, there is incentive to help the flooded compartments as there are only a certain number of compartments that can go down before the whole ship goes down, sinking into the mud invasion. With segmentation, its quarantining effect for the ecological integrity of our various European systems, we have more chance to withstand both arbitrary and imposed biohazard.
Non-equality would claim that nobody is an equal chess player. Non-sameness would correspond with different logics of action and meaning - Jews are playing chess while Whites are playing checkers. The logics of action and meaning of Whites may be commensurate and symbiotic with one another, even if they are not equal. They may also be symbiotic with other Whites even if somewhat incommensurate, provided they facilitate the overall functioning of the system. While non-Whites might be equal or even better to Whites in some ways, they would be incommensurate to internal participation in maintaining the overall function of the White system. As opposed to equality/inequality, not only does sameness/non-sameness highlight that logics of action and meaning may be commensurate or not, but crucially, it underscores that competition, in the case of incommensurability, may be something to avoid altogether. With that, it could be somebody quite ordinary (or worse) within our class who makes the difference, not necessarily the best chess player. Hence, it would probably pay to give some incentive to the full class to lend their agency, asking of their help, even if their skills are of a somewhat different logic of action and meaning (fairly incommensurate within our class), so long as the end game is the same.
Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:19 | #
Could JB or someone else explain this paragraph to me? I don’t recognize what the “breeds” terms as used here are referring to. One of the problems with white patriotism of all varieties is that, even in our most generic forms, we are at best a potentially only slightly larger than small minority (poor syntax, but I think my meaning is clear: taking WP at its absolute broadest - “we want the white race to continue indefinitely, and we prefer the culture and folkways of white societies to those of nonwhite ones, and thus want to end nonwhite immigration and white miscegenation” - it may not only not be a white majority sentiment, it might not even potentially be one). WPs are a tiny minority today, as self-identified US “conservatives” were 3/4 of a century ago. Will WPs ever become the white majority? And upon doing so, will they discover they are no longer the national population majority - in the US, UK, France, etc? Which brings me to my point. Is it really necessary to develop a WN metaphysics, or for WPs to battle over differing cosmological conceptions, in order to develop and disseminate the arguments against immigration and racial integration, and against the progressive, egalitarian (anti-scientific) explanations for different interracial group life outcomes? Why? What, for example, does attacking Christianity have to do with saving the white race? When I stress the need to develop Christian theological justifications for white political activism, I don’t actually preach the Gospel. I have not argued that WPs should all become Christians (except in a generic sense that, as a Christian, I hold that all men should become Christians), only that, as a practical matter, it is better for the white cause if WP is not seen to be incompatible with Christianity. In other words, I’m not demanding as a condition for white activism that WPs agree with my religious metaphysics. So why do so many WPs seem to want to undermine my Christianity? And is that strategically wise? A nationalist ‘minimum’ would seek to find areas of maximum intra-white agreement, not engage in the classic problem of ideological hyper-sectarianism. A pro-white agenda can be Christian or atheist, capitalist or socialist, traditionalist or modernist, etc. The main strategic point, as I have emphasized for many years now, is to bring as many whites as possible into WP, to have a Big Tent nationalism, not a narrow one. Indeed, given our paucity of numbers, and this after so many years of internet education as well as ideological activism, we really have no other choice. WP had better become something more than a philosophers’ supper club, and quickly. Time and numbers (nonwhite immigrants + falling white births) are running hard against us. 3
Posted by Silver on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:00 | #
There’s a tendency in some parts to think that unless ideas come packaged in 800+ pages of recondite verbiage they don’t really count as ideas, and thus could not possibly sustain a political sea-change of the requisite magnitude. It seems reasonable to doubt this. Which isn’t to argue against recondite philosophical musings per se. With such sea-change as mentioned, over time it’s only to be expected that philosophers of the day will mine the veins of ‘Being’ (or whatever) and associated matters to the point of tedium, inanity and absurdity, much the way they have ‘equality’, uncovering in the process many a valuable nugget. But that’s a job best left to the professionals. The profession of philosophy has, in the eyes of many, today fall into (self-induced) discredit. In response to being shoved off its traditional turf by cosmology, biology, neuroscience and so on it has progressively narrowed its field of investigation to the point its relevance is increasingly considered dubious. In the attempt to retain their prestige philosophers have been reduced to ‘guarding the gaps,‘not unlike the theologians they used to expend so much energy ridiculing. (Fate can be ironic.) Still, for all that, philosophers, through genuine curiosity and long hours spent mulling over distinctions many overlook, are adept at clarifying the positions held by various, often conflicting, parties and tying together strands of seemingly unrelated thought into coherent wholes. These are valuable skills. Would that they were once again (a la the Humes, the Mills, et al) put to good use. But in the meantime, one must be wary of placing undue reliance on philosophers to put things right. That is a job best left to political actors.
4
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19 | # Does not the neutral theory require speciation to maintain biodiversity? Thus the problem arising from European panmixia. Secondly, it is not apparent that Humphreys is the last word on Christianity despite the interesting interview. If you browse his site you will find that his contempt for Christianity runs so deep that it is not beyond him to employ the meme of the noble savage in order to denigrate Christian Europe. 5
Posted by Silver on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:20 | #
I think you’ll agree experience suggests a comprehensible answer is unlikely to be forthcoming so I hope you don’t mind if I give it a crack. I think “breeds” simply refers to racial lineages. The “heritage” and “industrial” distinctions refer, respectively, to whites (in particular your brand, north/northwestern), who achieved their diffusion throughout the world, their economic level, and their numbers based on a political and economic order quite close to what was for them a ‘state of nature,’ while non-whites (particularly blacks) achieved theirs owing to the assistance rendered them by whites—ie, under conditions far removed from their ‘state of nature.’ As far as I’m concerned it’s the just the usual post-hoc supremacist blather that is simultaneously so irresistibly alluring to proponents and so transparent and feeble, when not positively repugnant, to the racially indifferent. Keep banging your heads against that brick wall though fellers—it’s going to give way any minute!
6
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:28 | # . Of course we should leave it up to the “professionals”, who could not be bothered with our concerns to risk their state and corporate sponsored positions, undeserved and hugely over-paid as they are, perked with long time off, vacations around the world, fueled with fawning co-eds and ever-new desperadoes to supply them with feedback and information. Fuck them. They can die. 7
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:56 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on February 20, 2013, 04:19 AM | # Does not the neutral theory require speciation to maintain biodiversity? I believe that it is what it is saying, yes.
I guess you have a point there, that he may not be the bottom line. Perhaps he would render the charge of racism or render more sympathy to Jews under certain circumstances than they deserve (I don’t know him or his work that well) viz., his program might not correspond exactly or be inarticulate of White interests. But I meant to suggest that his critique of Christianity provides much practical groundwork or “pilings” as it were - largely sufficient in my assessment, anyway, toward putting Christianity behind us for those of us who wish to do so. As I have said before, for those who wish to maintain Christianity, I am not about to hunt them down to other websites or their churches to attack them. I have never really enjoyed criticizing Christians*; it emerges an unfortunate necessity at times. * Whereas Humphreys enjoys this critique and has gone to fine rational lengths to articulate the case. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:53 | # Well as Mr. Bowery states we are becoming, or are in fact, ‘eusocial’ so perhaps we could as copy another widespread biological feature of the Hymenoptera? Maybe arrhenotokous parthenogenesis could be part of our ‘breeding’ plan, yes? I hope I now can have his ‘respect’ with my suggestion. What is this ‘respect’ stuff? If I ‘diss’ you all are you gonna virtually gun me down a la Biggie Smalls? West coast versus East coast niggas at MR? Don’t dare diss the pastoral-utopianism et al., of our biggest and most bad-ass nigga please peeps. Bowery is in da house. On ‘undermining Christianity’ – the only ‘Western’ nation where a version of Christianity (the banal “Jesus is my home-boy stuff” of mental and emotional children – you know people that actually think God specially intervenes in the outcome of American football plays) is a consequential factor within its contemporary ‘cultural politics’ is the USA. So once again America doesn’t equal the world (shocking but true). In this aspect America has much more in common with India than Switzerland. And it’s quite beyond the power of a tiny and basically unimportant website to ‘destroy’ Christianity. Modernity has been steadily undermining the ‘foundational’ status of Christianity for some 400-500 years now. The job has been ‘done’ in that the default position of everyone in the modern world is non-theism. God is an unnecessary explanation in just about every theoretical and practical exercise or activity. To be a serious theist one must work quite hard to even approach something like intellectual respectability but here’s the rub. That God must be pre-emptively placed into the picture by the theist. In Nietzschean terms no-one can now be a ‘default’ theist in which various versions of non-theism simply do not intellectually or imaginatively ‘exist’. The old theological problem was that of the non-believer; it’s now the problem of the possibility of belief itself. By serious theist (a very rare creature indeed) I mean something beyond being just a lazy ‘sociological’ Christian as in America – Christianity in that context is basically a Durkheimian signalling mechanism that functionally signals ‘I’m an trustworthy member of a certain loosely defined set of socio-cultural norms’ that in serious theological and intellectual terms is almost nugatory in its content. Not that anyone is all that interested, but I seemed to know more about Christian theology/thinkers/the Bible than the average American ‘Christian’ that almost always displayed astonishing levels of ignorance of what they would claim was the ‘most important part of their life’. (No ordinary person ever knew the name Karl Rahner.) Incidentally, this is not just my prejudice at work; serious research into this area of the ‘depth’ of religious knowledge in the American population has found that for example some 70% plus percent of American Christians cannot even successful name all of the authors of the Synoptic Gospels. My, my, how ‘seriously’ to they take their faith! Look the brute truth is that Christianity in America is largely a mile wide but an inch deep. It’s a paper-tiger (little more than another consumerist ‘life-style’ amongst many) hence of no genuine positive intellectual or political importance, but obviously it might be important in presentational or propaganda terms (of course it’s a significant phenomenon, but so to is the Republican party, that hardly means either deserve veneration, respect, or genuflection before them). Fine it’s a given that any political actor in the USA must ‘in public’ be a ‘Christian’ but please telling us all that Christianity is the ‘essence’ of the West etc., is a story that, quite rightly, will fall on extremely deaf ears. Yes Christianity has been important (for good and for ill) in European history but then again Europeans existed quite happily, and in some cases flourished, before the Roman Empire became the Roman Church. Athens is equally significant (and I’d say much more valuable) in the European story than Jewish derived cults from Jerusalem. Finally, on this topic Mr. Haller asserts that the radical universality at the core of Christianity is not what it seems to be or is of a different type than say the radical universality at the core of all liberal ontologies. But he has yet to demonstrate in any way that assertion is credible. Precisely how can the moral particularism of say a communitarian like Michael Sandel (in his telling phrase that because we are inevitably drawn closer to some people and away from others, in both life and politics, we in reality owe “more than justice demands” on the basis of such proximities) be translated in the universalistic idiom of Christian morality? Aristotelian philia and Christian Brotherhood are not the same thing. Unless Mr. Haller think they are perhaps? Now I know Mr. Haller is busy with a very demanding schedule of graduate study but if he’s serious then surely he has been thinking about this topic for some time? Might a brief outline of say 2000-3000 words of how he views the conceptual terrain be of some use? At least then we might be able to judge if he’s sincere of merely suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance? Call it a “Prolegomenon to Moral Particularism as the Ground of Christian Ethics” or some such. Leon you might even get some useful feedback (stranger things have happened). Last point on philosophy and the ‘professionals’. First and foremost ontology is inexorable. Anyone at any time who engages in even the lowest level political discourse is engaged in dealing implicitly with ontologies and philosophical matters – the nature of the social and the individual (and the relationship between them), the nature of justice etc. Given that where do political actors get their ideas from? Well we are all ‘under the influence’ of something so is it not better to recognise that fact and act with the understanding that one is going to be under the influence then it’s better to seek out the best ideas and the best thinkers and to pro-actively stand on the shoulders of giants rather than passively imbibe the default banalities of say American liberalism? No-one is suggesting that anyone need do ‘original’ philosophical work. Most professional (that is academic) philosophers don’t do original work, or if it is original it’s of a very narrow and/or banal sort. Does anyone in the real world really care about the modal interpretation of counter-factuals? Probably not. However that type of narrow ‘analytical’ philosophy is not all there is to the philosophical life. Are questions such as ‘what is justice?’ only the domain of those with tenured academic positions and a Ph.D. in the thoughts of John Rawls? To think so can only be the mindset of a rather foolish and profoundly anti-political person. Certainly the coherence and depth of one’s views will generally reflect something of the efforts one has put in – so ‘the man in pub’ that thinks ‘The Sun’ is a great newspaper might have very little of worth to say on such matters, but political philosophy is not quite like say issues of metallurgy (in which genuine expertise is crucial and really, really, does matter). I’m quite happy to admit I know very little, almost nothing at all, about metallurgy (the science of metals), but it is (at best) only very indirectly related to the question as to how political communities should live. But the questions of politics can be approached in better or worse ways. To read ‘After Virtue’ by MacIntyre is not a technically demanding exercise in obscure mathematical logic or set theory, not is Nietzsche ‘difficult’ to read, nor even Plato. But by standing on their shoulders we inevitably can see further than we otherwise would – even at the risk of our vision being distorted in some way. Even if original works in the area of morals/ethics and political philosophy are too ‘forbidding’ for some, there are many excellent undergraduate/graduate level critical introductions that are understandable to any person with a reasonable/functioning intellect and a dictionary of philosophy by their side. Oh and a little bit of time and effort on the readers part too. ‘The Republic’ is a little more demanding than Bill O’Reilly on Fox, or heaven forbid Glenn Beck. But equally ‘The Republic’ is by no means ‘incomprehensibly’ complex. Nor is Heidegger once you grasp the specialised terminology (he’s complex and challenging absolutely, and no not really for the average ‘guy in the pub’, but he’s not quite so forbidding as to be verboten). As for simple ideas being the best. True it’s an enormous skill to communicate successfully the gist of a complex conceptual framework to a mass audience or a group of people that basically are not in the slightest way seriously interested in the wider background and/or complicated ideas (ever tried teaching young people anything and you would know precisely what I mean and here I’m thinking of relatively bright university students; the ever larger “if it’s not ‘on the test’ I’m not interested” brigade). Sometimes simplicity or elegance is a communicative and intellectual virtue, but not always. Some things are only ‘simple’ at the risk of a profoundly mistaken understanding and/or confusion. Surgery can in some forms be pretty simple right? Why not perform a DIY/home liposculpture suction lipectomy with a knife and a vacuum cleaner? Well yes the surgeon is, at base, merely vacuuming fat out of the abdomens of obese Americans (that’s true) but there a little more to the whole business, yes? OK most of that is ‘off-topic’ and I’ve wasted my lunch break in writing it - so carry on with neutral theory versus niche theory. 9
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:48 | # Leon Haller asks: “Could JB or someone else explain this paragraph to me? I don’t recognize what the “breeds” terms as used here are referring to.” If you click through the hyperlink provided in the questioned paragraph, you’ll see this quote from E. O. Wilson:
This general kind of “linkage” (genetic linkage not referring in any way to hyperlinks of course)—possibly extending across chromosomes—to which Wilson refers, has also been called by Edwards “genetic correlation structure” in his paper “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. Cross-chromosome linkage is qualitatively different than intra-chromosome linkage due to meiotic crossover—the way the genetic “deck” is “shuffled” during gamete creation. Pursuing the metaphor, when you shuffle a deck of cards, from time to time a clump of cards from one hand will fall together without being interspersed with cards from the other hand. This is analogous to intrachromosomal linkage—the closer two “cards” (genetic loci) are to each other, the more likely they are to end up together in the next generation. When you cross chromosome boundaries, however, it is as though you are shuffling a different deck of cards which will eventually be appended to other decks of cards—hence the qualitative* difference in such correlation structures. For a cross-chromosome correlation structure to arise and persist is much more evolutionarily fragile, is far more dependent on the statistics of the gene pool of breeders and takes far longer to be selected for. The distinction I make between “heritage breeds” and what might be called “wild-type” is that heritage breeds have been subjected to a larger degree of panmixia combined with artificial selection and have, therefore, had the most fragile of their genetic correlation structures—most extremely represented by interchromosomal correlation structures—damaged. The distinction between “heritage breeds” and “industrial breeds” I’m using regarding humans is referring not so much to the degree of panmixia (although such is not excluded) but to the breeding program which renders the resulting individuals more dependent (ie: more eusocial). *While it is true that the further apart two loci are on a chromosome the less likely they are to avoid cross-over during meiosis, and that therefore their probability of ending up together in the gamete approaches that of the inter-chromosomal linkages, it is still subject to meiotic crossover probabilities.
10
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:11 | # GL blurts: “Well as Mr. Bowery states we are becoming, or are in fact, ‘eusocial’ so perhaps we could as copy another widespread biological feature of the Hymenoptera? Maybe arrhenotokous parthenogenesis could be part of our ‘breeding’ plan, yes? I hope I now can have his ‘respect’ with my suggestion.” I will admit that it takes more that merely positing an alternative culture to get me to respect your opinions, GL. One must also be sincere. Characterizing my proposed culture of individual integrity as that of the “biggest and most bad-ass nigga” is not sincere even as snipes go. However, if I am free to accept your proposed culture of arrhenotokous parthenogenesis as sincere, we may be making progress. Is it sincere? 11
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:12 | # ..... So I will add this line to the post to clarify: “Poor right-wingers, the crucial matter is not equality, but non-samess, a qualitative issue.”
.. “The Golden Dawn, while identifying as “third position” (neither left nor right)”.. 12
Posted by Robert on Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:11 | #
What I don’t understand about these critiques of egalitarianism like the one you mention at Counter-Currents is that they claim that contemporary leftism and political correctness actually constitute egalitarianism, when in reality they seem to promote inequality, just with a different hierarchy. 13
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:11 | # True. I guess that is because the White Right has been so effectively scared-off of the idea of unionization* that they would rather remain mystified and affixed to their hapless non-position.
One that includes private property; in fact, there would be more homestead ownership than there is now based on our working notion of distributism. Ironically, there would probably be more public wild lands as well. Free enterprise and significant wealth - i.e. “inequality” etc. 14
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:14 | # And, with our White Left, White Class, there would be the means to establish a criteria of consensus by which to take their “left” to account for their unjust inequalities. 15
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:00 | # ... Non-equality would claim that nobody is an equal chess player. Non-sameness would correspond with different logics of action and meaning - Jews are playing chess while Whites are playing checkers. Nevertheless, the logics of action and meaning of Whites may be commensurate and symbiotic, even if they are not equal. They also may be symbiotic and somewhat incommensurate provided they facilitate the overall functioning of the system. As opposed to equality/inequality, not only does sameness/non-sameness highlight that logics of action and meaning may be commensurate or not, but crucially, it underscores that competition, in the case of incommensurability may be something to avoid altogether. With that, it could be somebody quite ordinary (or worse) within our class who makes the difference, not necessarily the best chess player - it pays to give some encouragement to the full class to lend their agency with the notion that they may be of help, even if their skills are are of a somewhat different logic of meaning and action (fairly incommensurate within our class), so long as the end game is the same. 16
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:12 | # Jim says: The question no one but myself seems to want to address in a way that can be criticized* is: What sort of breeding program should be put in place? This is the same question as, what should be our culture? *I have no respect for the opinions of those who snipe without placing themselves in a similar position. I would have it be a feature of the Euro-DNA Nation to begin - and as an option, always - as that seems to be the only “culture” and nation potentially under our control at least for the time being. That is, once a person takes on a genetic category that they match well enough they might go onto an additional list as parenting candidate. At that point, matches would be sought according to our best estimate of what is genotypically optimal and appropriate. Parents would be able to evaluate their partners based on phenotypic evidence, photos, life and family history etc. We would determine the resources and environment necessary to bring a child to sexual maturity. We would add assessments based on material resource that the prospective parent brings to the potential pairing, what collective, social resource the nation might be willing to add on the basis of need and merit. Successful raising of a child should entail responsibilities to the Euro-DNA Nation - probably stipulated beforehand. There could be more or even less criteria involved, as far as I am concerned, but I will stop there for now and let someone else have their say, if they like. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:39 | # Saying “Euro-DNA Nation” as in “I would have it be a feature of the Euro-DNA Nation to begin” begs the question of “culture”. I’m using a specific ontology in a rigorous manner so that the phrase “Euro-DNA Nation” even makes sense: Culture: Artificial selection as opposed to natural selection. We may define “natural selection” as it was used by Darwin. From prior hard lessons here at MR, the “artificial” vs “natural” debate is where the ontology project must focus even before we discuss exactly what artifice will select for what. 18
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:38 | # I don’t quite understand this question of yours:
But I guess maybe you are taking exception to the artificiality of the criteria in comparison to the reality of ontology. The next two assertions seem to confirm that guess: We may define “natural selection” as it was used by Darwin.
I am taking for granted that we are approaching the natural when we try to provide the possibility of genetic and phenotypic criteria for native European matches. And it is all the more ethical in that we do not preclude more natural means of pairing. The criteria may not be as thorough as you like, and I am certainly not standing in the way of your more rigorous analysis of the both the artificial and the “natural” means. On the contrary, more analysis is more than welcome, it is to be encouraged. However, getting the show on the road is not the worst thing in the world if the result is that, based on what we know so far of genetics and ok, of culture and history, that two people are proposed for each other (lets say that they are both of the same European nationality), accept and successfully raise a child. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:12 | # There is some sense of the word “nature” to which we attribute the creation of value. As humans we have a particular relationship with this creative force starting as individuals coalescing to a culture—to artificial selection—that is commensurate with prior creation or it is incommesurate with prior creation. That relationship must be central to the ontology project or it truly is nihilistic by “virtue” of its inattention, in the creation of artifice, to the origin of value. 21
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:14 | # However, before we plunge into a headlong critique of “artificial means” to stay alive, it must be taken into account that the means of killing us have been quite artificial. 22
Posted by Tripp on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:40 | #
Does this view reject the idea of memetics? Memetics asserts that culture consists of memes that are independent replicators under selective pressures, whereas the above definition seems to suggest that culture is a selective pressure. 23
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:25 | # No. It is perfectly reasonable to posit replicators whose substrates are any form of digital information. “Selection”, whether natural or artificial, operates on all replicators regardless of substrate. “Artificial” merely means that human agency is involved. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:29 | # DanielS, I am by no means attacking the “artificial”—I am merely trying to come to clarity about the value of Man in terms commensurate with prior creation. 25
Posted by Bill on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:12 | # In the absence of knowing where to put this, I will post it here.
From a piece by Auster over at VFR ‘The Etiology of Cultural Suicide’ http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ 23/2/2013. 26
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:57 | # Taking a look at that article, it is apparently another attempt, in this case by the Jewish Auster, to blame hippies for all of our problems. I hadn’t seen the quote from Sobran before (good writer) which Auster places before the final two paragraphs of the Auster article, where Auster tries to blame hippies. However, Sobran’s criticisms are along similar lines as mine, in that marginals are perniciously and quantifiably force integrated upon the mainstream; and where marginals do not exist in the mainstream, they are imported from without. That is nothing like people being differentiated and assigned different roles according to their abilities, which the view of my post on incommensurablity suggests - it does not recommend integration of the incommensurate any more than Sobran does. And it certainly does not recommend importing outsiders (especially non-Whites) to “enrich us” with their inabilities. To say that this perverse concept of integrating marginals stems from Hippies as opposed to its coming from from Marxist Jews just goes to show that Auster is functional misdirection. Here is his “Addendum” the last two paragraphs of the essay you quote: “Where did the syndrome of viewing America simultaneously as the source of all goods and the source of all evil come from? It came from the “elite,” rebellious cohort of white middle-class youth. The children of the 1950s and ’60s were the most privileged, easy-going, self-regarding generation in history. Their most influential members expected every fulfillment, while despising their middle class parents who had made their comfortable life possible. They expected their parents to pay their way even as they looked down on their parents as “bourgeois,” “repressed,” and so on. This attitude of parasitic alienation, of hostile entitlement, then spread out from a small upper middle class group in the 1960s to inform the entire American culture. In this new culture, people despise America even as they angrily demand that America provide for all their desires. And now even Third-Worlders have adopted this “spoiled adolescent” syndrome vis à vis America. Thus the attitudes of a small group of alienated, self-important Americans have become the template of a world-wide anti-culture. Instead of Toynbee’s creative minority, which creates the models that form a culture, this destructive minority disseminated the ideas and attitudes that eliminated a culture, by elevating their own warped family drama into a new cultural paradigm.” It is not that a lot of people of that demographic and generation are not seriously off the mark, but to blame them as the source for the theoretical and sociopolitical planning that has brought about the current problems we endure is disingenuous at best. Note Auster’s use of the words “repressed” and “bougeois” that hippies are alleged to have attributed to their parents. Where did these ideas come from, hippies? 27
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:01 | # However, I do think there is something to Jim’s well articulate post regarding the dumb luck and hubris of the first-born just after World War II: they had a big advantage and in some respects left ones born a little later in the funk. 28
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:52 | # An appreciation to Silver and James Bowery for attempting to clarify some confusions of mine. I’m left wondering what, however, are JB’s answers to his own questions:
Doesn’t the issue of “breeding programs” presuppose a level of technological mastery that is as yet unrealized? I’m not very familiar with genetics, and obviously my racial nationalism is based in politics, ethics and historical understandings, not scientific realities per se, but I’m not aware that we’ve actually discovered the prerequisite science for engaging in ‘molecular eugenics’ (ie, changing/designing/improving embryos in utero). If, say, we wish to improve the cognitive quality of the race, as yet we can only do so by encouraging high-IQ persons to mate and over-reproduce (while concurrently sterilizing mental defectives). As far as I know, we’re still at the stage of classical eugenics. I suppose we could do something of the same sort using testosterone as a proxy for producing courageous persons. But surely this would be a very clumsy and inexact process, at least at present. I’m a strong proponent of the moral case for eugenic research. A book I’d like to write someday has the working title Christian Eugenics (though that might lead the casual observer to assume I wish to produce more persons genetically inclined towards embracing Christianity, whereas my interest really lay in discrediting various Christian theological objections to traditional eugenics). WNs need to be careful with eugenic advocacy. It tends to run with nationalism (though it doesn’t have to), but can offer an implicit challenge, too. WNs properly pride themselves on being uniquely attuned, amongst ideologies, to biological realities, but at some point it might be asked why, exactly, we should be concerned with racial perpetuity at all, especially if a better developed eugenics allows us to design superior people (smarter, healthier, better looking, more ethical)in toto. Much of the justification for white preservation is that we are superior, and that mixing (whether genetically or sociologically) lowers the quality of white nations (as in fact it almost always has, everywhere). But what if public policy were racially neutral, but also dedicated to developing a biologically superior society? 29
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:50 | # Leon, While you have claimed White’s superiority being the primary reason for your advocacy of Whites, it is not my reason nor is it the reason of many if not most White advocates. As for finding a biologically superior non-White society a provocative consideration, it is not persuasive to those who care deeply for the qualities of Whites - it is a bi-product of the blindness of right-wing objectivism. For example, a “superior” mulatto race or mixed Asian race, while perhaps reducing the White race and its qualitative variety, will not likely reduce Asians and their relative indifference to us, or Blacks proper and their graphically destructive properties to us. Why do you wonder at the beast? It is the hell of the loss of our qualities to brutal oppressors, the hell of the Black world that White children come into through no choice of their own, the hell where White women are raped that we have to bear in mind as we look upon mulattoes, Asians and the Whites that they have consumed. 30
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:19 | # /. When an otherwise intelligent guy and good writer, best AR has, makes this poor an offering in reaction: http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/3/4/alternative-vertical You know that you must be doing something right in the White Left position. * The Alt Right (and Jewish interests) are so concerned that Whites do not unionize that they’ve stooped to the prospects of Jewish cyborg-bimbo entertainment (maybe one of their guru, Gottfried’s recommendations) And they tried to say that we are about bringing retards up to snuff - that is how absurd a straw man that they would grasp for: http://vanguardradio.net/podcast/2013/3/3/future-shock * There is no use in establishing and maintaining the White Class? Not on behalf of its processual ecologies? Nor against elitist exploitation, no use in defending against non-Whites, or against irresponsibility in its members? Baloney.
31
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:32 | # Paradoxically, the right thinks it is going to appeal to people with snobbery - scary snobbery, weird snobbery or anachronistic snobbery, name your preferred snob angle. 32
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:32 | # As yet a fourth pro inequality essay is churned-out, this one for Alternative Right, we ought to be asking the question, are we defending our race, our people, or are we defending inequality? The answer should be obvious. We are neither defending equality nor inequality but the qualitative matters of our race. If I were of Jewish interests, especially at this point, I would be quite happy to hear right-wingers defending the abstract value of inequality.
They are liable to be shooting at you, White loyalist, in times of war. These institutions were not created to articulate explicit defense of European genetic interests. In addition, while their ambiguity allows for many clever interpretations, it also obfuscates clear guidance in defense of our people and along with that, allows too much weasel room in betrayal of European interests. 33
Posted by Baraksa on Fri, 03 Mar 2023 04:46 | # nice article I learn more a lot of information to this article 34
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 03 Mar 2023 06:44 | # My helicopter is full of elvers so we are totally in agreement, Baraboy . Post a comment:
Next entry: Mike Thwait: Stategic Insights into Mass Mind Psychology
|
|
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) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:02 | #
I’ve been breeding chickens: Take a variety of heritage breeds, provide protection from predators with cattle dogs but no other care at all. Gather eggs for incubation during winter when food is scarce and don’t go hunting all over for eggs — if they can’t lay eggs where I can get them, they get selected out of the gene pool. The first generation I had a huge mortality rate. I’m on the fourth generation now and out of 50 chickens I’ve lost only about 10% this winter.
Obviously, I couldn’t base this breeding program on industrialized breeds which are bred to basically sit in a tiny cage, immobile, and be a tube through which passes low cost industrial feed, a large portion of which turns into flesh that ultimately may render the chicken incapable of copulation.
If I had started with varieties of Red Junglefowl—the original wild-type from which chickens were domesticated—I would not have proceeded in the same manner. Instead I would have started with a variety most adapted to my local environment. I would not have mixed varieties—at least not initially. I would merely have subjected it to the other constraints involving incubation and gathering of eggs within a predator-suppressed environment. This is because there are genetic correlation structures that take a long time to evolve—correlation structures that are not going to be immediately obvious let alone their adaptive values.
Similar considerations must obtain when considering various European types.
There are some that will have their ancient genetic correlation structures relatively in tact and these should be preserved in their original ecologies to the largest degree consistent with the reality that most of us are “heritage breeds”—the result of some degree of domestication that falls, thankfully, far short of the sort of “industrialized” breeds so popular with other races. Much of our finely tuned genetic correlation structures have already been damaged beyond repair and what remains for us is the breeding program with us as the founders.
The question no one but myself seems to want to address in a way that can be criticized* is:
What sort of breeding program should be put in place?
This is the same question as, what should be our culture?
*I have no respect for the opinions of those who snipe without placing themselves in a similar position.