Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:35 | #

Good essay.  As always from The Narrator.

Posted by Roger Gray on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:28 | #

I’ve been reading this site for a long time, and I must say it never once occurred to me that its contributors want to preserve the dominator system that Fletcher Christian and his men were trying to escape from. Perhaps I should get new reading glasses.

I once wrote a newspaper review of The Bounty by Caroline Alexander. I said:

“But it was the lure of Tahiti that scuppered the Bounty and its cargo of breadfruit plants. It is impossible to escape the contrast between the ship’s crew and the islanders. The seamen, bandy-legged, some toothless and with pockmarked faces, and ‘filling the deck, milling and laughing around them, the tall, clean-limbed, smooth-skinned Tahitians […] Their brown skin gleaming with perfumed oil, garlanded with flowers.’

[…]

“Every man must have suffered from, and felt liberated by, the contrast between their scarecrow ship, where brutal floggings were meted out for the slightest wrongs, and the carefree life of the islanders.

“Alexander doesn’t point out the obvious, that in a sense it was English values, and not the men, that were tried and found wanting.

“Instead she invites the reader to imagine what it was like on the day of departure, the tearful farewells of the men’s women and children as the ship slipped away.”

I take it that no one on this site wants a return to breadfruit-eating slaves and the cat o’ nine tails. English Law as it was at the time the Bounty sailed was breathtakingly unjust, where men could be put away for a long time for minor infractions, and space could always be found for another law, and frequently was, to keep Britons in wretched helotry (unless they were rich).

Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:30 | #

Always obvious you were at some point a Christian. An insufficient amount of self-flagellation on your part to whip that pesky and devilish faith gene out of your genome.

All this talk about morality? Grounded in what?

Repent!

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:49 | #

Sorry, but this is howling at the moon.

People learn from their mistakes unless they are taught otherwise.

Who were the teachers?

Posted by Bill on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:58 | #

Christian was seeking the multi-cult Utopia in preference to the hard brutal life at sea in Britain’s navy.  It was not a top down decision by Captain Bligh.  (but I must confess his regime was a great prompter for Christian)

We are having the multi-cult Utopia foisted on us from the top, not only that, what is being foisted upon us is intended to destroy us.  Bligh didn’t wish to destroy Christian.

I

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:18 | #

This beautiful Roger Whittaker song seems à propos in a way, so I’ll throw it in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqj64EJc1J4

Posted by james on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:31 | #

“History repeats itself” it certainly does as I keep getting the same non-responce to my question.

How come when I metiioned about contacting someone at the Eurasia movement for a Majority Rights interview I never got a responce?

Are you going to interview Norman Lowell again in the future anytime soon?

Posted by I Am The Sword on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:57 | #

Whites have three main enemys.

Blacks, jews and ourselves.

If we could only sort ourselves out we’d be alright.

Death to the White liberal.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:25 | #

Commenter Roger Gray says he once wrote the following in a review that was published in a newspaper:

I once wrote a newspaper review of The Bounty by Caroline Alexander.  I said:

“But it was the lure of Tahiti that scuppered the Bounty and its cargo of breadfruit plants.  It is impossible to escape the contrast between the ship’s crew and the islanders.  The seamen, bandy-legged [victims of childhood rickets, in other words], some toothless and with pockmarked faces [uglified smallpox-scarred victims in other words], and ‘filling the deck, milling and laughing around them, the tall, clean-limbed, smooth-skinned Tahitians […] Their brown skin gleaming with perfumed oil, garlanded with flowers.’ […] Every man must have suffered from, and felt liberated by, the contrast between their scarecrow ship, […] and the carefree life of the [physically beautiful] islanders.”

Were the English sailors of that age really so deformed?  I dunno, I suspect Roger Gray has been a little “taken in” by accounts of social conditions in early Industrial-Revolution England and their supposed effects in disfiguring the population, accounts written by the social reformers of that age who were agitating for new laws and therefore dwelled on the bad out of proportion to reality. 

In the following passage, Yankee college student Richard Henry Dana, writing in 1830 of his experiences as a common sailor during a two-year leave-of-absence from college, describes the “English sailor” type of that era, an image which can’t have been very different from Captain Bligh’s era, as it was recorded only a decade or so after Bligh’s death.  Right before Dana’s description of the typical English sailor of that era he describes the typical Polynesian sailor as represented by a crew of Hawaiian sailors (“Sandwich Islanders”) manning a little Scottish-owned-and-captained, English-officered ship anchored in the same port along the California coast (this was when California belonged to Mexico).  I include the description of the Polynesians to give a sense of the author’s general objectivity: 

The only vessel in port with us was the little Loriotte.  I frequently went on board her, and became very well acquainted with her Sandwich Island crew.  One of them could speak a little English, and from him I learned a good deal about them.  They were well formed and active, with black eyes, intelligent countenances, dark-olive, or, I should rather say, copper complexions and coarse black hair, but not woolly like the negroes.  They appeared to be talking continually.  In the forecastle there was a complete Babel.  Their language is extremely guttural, and not pleasant at first, but improves as you hear it more, and is said to have great capacity.  They use a good deal of gesticulation, and are exceedingly animated, saying with their might what their tongues find to say.  They are complete water-dogs, therefore very good in boating.  It is for this reason that there are so many of them on the coast of California; they being very good hands in the surf.  They are also quick and active in the rigging, and good hands in warm weather; but those who have been with them round Cape Horn, and in high latitudes, say that they are useless in cold weather.  In their dress they are precisely like our sailors.

Now comes Dana’s description of the “thoroughbred English sailor” of the epoch, and, I dunno, maybe I missed it but somehow the image Dana presents doesn’t appear to correspond to the bandy-legged, rickets-deformed, small-pox-defaced, toothless, scrawny, bent, syphilitic, wheezing, pale, pathetic-looking scarecrow who compares so unfavorably to the bronzed, strong, ideal specimens of Polynesian manhood in Roger Gray’s description: 

In addition to these [Sandwich] Islanders, the vessel had two English sailors, who acted as boatswains over the Islanders, and took care of the rigging.  One of them I shall always remember as the best specimen of the thoroughbred English sailor that I ever saw.  He had been to sea from a boy, having served a regular apprenticeship of seven years, as all English sailors are obliged to do, and was then about four or five and twenty.  He was tall; but you only perceived it when he was standing by the side of others, for the great breadth of his shoulders and chest made him appear but little above the middle height.  His chest was as deep as it was wide; his arm like that of Hercules; and his hand “the fist of a tar — every hair a rope-yarn.”  With all this he had one of the pleasantest smiles I ever saw.  His cheeks were of a handsome [suntanned] brown; his teeth brilliantly white [what happened to “toothless”???]; and his hair, of a raven black, waved in loose curls all over his head, and fine, open forehead; and his eyes he might have sold to a duchess at the price of diamonds, for their brilliancy.  As for their color, they were like the Irishman’s pig, which would not stay to be counted, every change of position and light seemed to give them a new hue; but their prevailing color was black, or nearly so.  Take him with his well-varnished black tarpaulin [canvas sailor’s hat of the era, varnished to make it waterproof,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Tar ] stuck upon the back of his head; his long locks coming down almost into his eyes; his white duck trowsers and shirt; blue jacket; and black kerchief, tied loosely round his neck; and he was a fine specimen of manly beauty [gee what happened to toothless, scurvy, rickets-deformed, bandy-legged, and scrawny in comparison to the tall strapping bronze picture-perfect Polynesians?].  On his broad chest [“broad”?  do human scarecrows bent by rickets have broad chests?] he had stamped with India ink [tattooed] “Parting moments;” — a ship ready to sail; a boat on the beach; and a girl and her sailor lover taking their farewell.  Underneath were printed the initials of his own name, and two other letters, standing for some name which he knew better than I did.  This was very well done, having been executed by a man who made it his business to print with India ink, for sailors, at Le Havre.  On one of his broad arms [“broad” here must be a typo for “scrawny”] he had the crucifixion, and on the other the sign of the “foul anchor.”  He was very fond of reading [“very fond of reading”?? But weren’t these scurvy scarecrows all illiterate?], and we lent him most of the books which we had in the forecastle, which he read and returned to us the next time we fell in with him.  He had a good deal of information, and his captain said he was a perfect seaman, and worth his weight in gold on board a vessel, in fair weather and in foul.  His strength must have been great, and he had the sight of a vulture [somehow the scurvy and rickets didn’t affect his eyesight].  It is strange that one should be so minute in the description of an unknown, outcast sailor, whom one may never see again, and whom no one may care to hear about; but so it is.  Some people we see under no remarkable circumstances, but whom, for some reason or other, we never forget.  He called himself Bill Jackson; and I know no one of all my accidental acquaintances to whom I would more gladly give a shake of the hand than to him.  Whoever falls in with him will find a handsome, hearty fellow, and a good shipmate.

Wow, lotta typos in that!  Bartleby’s will have to get to work proof-reading that mass of errors!!

( http://www.bartleby.com/23/13.html )

Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:35 | #

ship anchored in the same port along the California coast (this was when California belonged to Mexico)

History really does repeat itself.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:07 | #

For A Finn:  a passage from the Dana book:

Our cook, a simple-hearted old African, who had been through a good deal in his day, and was rather seriously inclined, always going to church twice a day when on shore, and reading his Bible on a Sunday in the galley, talked to the crew about spending their Sabbaths badly, and told them that they might go as suddenly as George had [a crew member who’d just fallen overboard and drowned], and be as little prepared.  […] 

The night after this event, when I went to the galley to get a light, I found the cook inclined to be talkative, so I sat down on the spars, and gave him an opportunity to hold a yarn.  I was the more inclined to do so, as I found that he was full of the superstitions once more common among seamen, and which the recent death had waked up in his mind.  He talked about George’s having spoken of his friends, and said he believed few men died without having a warning of it, which he supported by a great many stories of dreams, and the unusual behavior of men before death. 

From this he went on to other superstitions, the Flying Dutchman, etc., and talked rather mysteriously, having something evidently on his mind. 

At length he put his head out of the galley and looked carefully about to see if any one was within hearing, and being satisfied on that point, asked me in a low tone — “I say! you know what countryman ’e carpenter be?”

“Yes,” said I, “he’s a German.”

“What kind of a German?” said the cook.

“He belongs to Bremen,” said I.

“Are you sure o’ dat?” said he.

I satisfied him on that point by saying that he could speak no language but the German and English.

“I’m plaguy glad o’ dat,” said the cook.  “I was mighty ’fraid he was a Fin.  I tell you what, I been plaguy civil to that man all the voyage.”  I asked him the reason of this, and found that he was fully possessed with the notion that Fins are wizards, and especially have power over winds and storms. 

I tried to reason with him about it, but he had the best of all arguments, that from experience, at hand, and was not to be moved.  He had been in a vessel to the Sandwich Islands, in which the sail-maker was a Fin, and could do anything he was of a mind to.  This sail-maker kept a junk bottle in his berth, which was always just half full of rum, though he got drunk upon it nearly every day.  He had seen him sit for hours together, talking to this bottle, which he stood up before him on the table.  The same man cut his throat in his berth, and everybody said he was possessed.

He had heard of ships, too, beating up the gulf of Finland against a head wind and having a ship heave in sight astern, overhaul and pass them, with as fair a wind as could blow, and all studding-sails out, and find she was from Finland.  “Oh, no!” said he; “I’ve seen too much of them men to want to see ’board a ship.  If they can’t have their own way, they’ll play the devil with you.”

As I still doubted, he said he would leave it to John, who was the oldest seaman aboard, and would know, if anybody did.  John, to be sure, was the oldest, and at the same time the most ignorant, man in the ship; but I consented to have him called.  The cook stated the matter to him, and John, as I anticipated, sided with the cook, and said that he himself had been in a ship where they had a head wind for a fortnight, and the captain found out at last that one of the men, whom he had had some hard words with a short time before, was a Fin, and immediately told him if he didn’t stop the head wind he would shut him down in the fore peak.  The Fin would not give in, and the captain shut him down in the fore peak, and would not give him anything to eat.  The Fin held out for a day and a half, when he could not stand it any longer, and did something or other which brought the wind round again, and they let him up.

“There,” said the cook, “what you think o’ dat?”  I told him I had no doubt it was true, and that it would have been odd if the wind had not changed in fifteen days, Fin or no Fin.  “Oh,” says he, “go ’way! You think, ’cause you been to college, you know better than anybody.  You know better than them as has seen it with their own eyes.  You wait till you’ve been to sea as long as I have, and you’ll know.”

( http://www.bartleby.com/23/6.html )

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:20 | #

Wonderful, Fred.  The things those fellows did with good timber and sail-cloth!

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:00 | #

I believe that many more of the Bounty’s crew wanted to stay with Bligh but space was limited on the boat the mutineers placed him in. These non-mutineers were let off somewhere else before the Bounty went to Pitcairn.

I think Robert is using the film(s) as his only reference point.

Posted by Roger Gray on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:44 | #

“Wait!” cried a deep, ringing voice.

All stood still. Mr. Baker, who had turned away yawning, spun round
open-mouthed. At last, furious, he blurted out:—“What’s this? Who said
‘Wait’? What….”

But he saw a tall figure standing on the rail. It came down and pushed
through the crowd, marching with a heavy tread towards the light on
the quarterdeck. Then again the sonorous voice said with
insistence:—“Wait!” The lamplight lit up the man’s body. He was tall.
His head was away up in the shadows of lifeboats that stood on skids
above the deck. The whites of his eyes and his teeth gleamed distinctly,
but the face was indistinguishable. His hands were big and seemed
gloved.

Mr. Baker advanced intrepidly. “Who are you? How dare you…” he began.

The boy, amazed like the rest, raised the light to the man’s face. It
was black. A surprised hum—a faint hum that sounded like the suppressed
mutter of the word “Nigger”—ran along the deck and escaped out into the
night. The nigger seemed not to hear. He balanced himself where he stood
in a swagger that marked time. After a moment he said calmly:—“My name
is Wait—James Wait.”

“Oh!” said Mr. Baker. Then, after a few seconds of smouldering silence,
his temper blazed out. “Ah! Your name is Wait. What of that? What do you
want? What do you mean, coming shouting here?”

The nigger was calm, cool, towering, superb. The men had approached and
stood behind him in a body. He overtopped the tallest by half a head.
He said: “I belong to the ship.” He enunciated distinctly, with soft
precision. The deep, rolling tones of his voice filled the deck without
effort. He was naturally scornful, unaffectedly condescending, as if
from his height of six foot three he had surveyed all the vastness of
human folly and had made up his mind not to be too hard on it. He went
on:—“The captain shipped me this morning. I couldn’t get aboard sooner.
I saw you all aft as I came up the ladder, and could see directly you
were mustering the crew. Naturally I called out my name. I thought
you had it on your list, and would understand. You misapprehended.”
He stopped short. The folly around him was confounded. He was right as
ever, and as ever ready to forgive. The disdainful tones had ceased,
and, breathing heavily, he stood still, surrounded by all these white
men. He held his head up in the glare of the lamp—a head vigorously
modelled into deep shadows and shining lights—a head powerful and
misshapen with a tormented and flattened face—a face pathetic and
brutal: the tragic, the mysterious, the repulsive mask of a nigger’s
soul.

– The Nigger of the Narcissus

No typos in here, but a lot of ambiguity. How strange to modern eyes to read of unaffected condescension, or the word pathetic used here in its original sense, before it was cheapened.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:49 | #

and I must say it never once occurred to me that its contributors want to preserve the dominator system that Fletcher Christian and his men were trying to escape from.

Posted by Roger Gray on June 20, 2009, 06:28 PM

They weren’t Christian’s men, they were under the command of Bligh. And by comparisons to his contemporaries, Bligh was rather lenient in the discipline department. He once had a few deserters flogged whereas hanging was the standard punishment of the day for such behavior.
And Fletcher Christian was no novice and new what to expect. He had connections to the family of Bligh’s wife and had twice sailed to Jamaica with Bligh before the voyage of the Bounty. In fact if I’m not mistaken it was Christian who approached Bligh for a position on the Bounty.

.
.
.

All this talk about morality? Grounded in what?

Posted by danielj on June 20, 2009, 06:30 PM

A -specific-morality. Western morality. Grounded in our genes.

.
.
.
.

People learn from their mistakes unless they are taught otherwise.

Posted by James Bowery on June 20, 2009, 06:49 PM

Some do, but plenty do not. Again it is a matter of character as to whether they are willing to learn or not. And as I’m not a big believer in Road to Damascus type of turn-arounds I tend to think it’s best to view people for what they are and not what they might, possibly, could be at some future turn in the road.
We have to accept that many will simply choose to mutiny and no amount of wise council will bring them to their senses. We just have to let them go on down the destructive path they’ve chosen and worry about keeping the right path for ourselves and our fellow travelers who kept to the good way.

.
.
.
Thanks Fred.

.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:42 | #

I forgot to say thanks.

I was unaware of this story except for knowing the phrase “mutiny on the Bounty” itself.

I thought “bounty” was just some nautical term.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:49 | #

Not sure I get the point of Roger Gray’s second comment but as I suspect he’s The Monitor I’m not going further with it.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:46 | #

Dan…

HMS Bounty wikipedia page. This page says that more than half the crew supported Bligh rather than Christian.

1935 movie.

1962 movie.

1984 movie.

I contend that Roger (not Roger, my mistake) bases his view of the mutiny on these three films, all fictional accounts. As is often the way, these films represent the sum total of popular knowledge on the subject.

Posted by H.F. Wolff on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:06 | #

Did anybody perchance take the time and read the book???

Movies poorly reflect the author’s work.

H.F. wolff

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:45 | #

Isn’t Pitcairn’s an example for GT’s micro communities?

As Madison said “The tendency to faction, he explained, was “sown in the nature of man”.

The story of Pitcairn’s Island deeply resonates with Madison’s focus on the dangers of factional abuse. The faction that emerged on the island consisted of five sailors who had drifted together by reason of common temperament, close quarters, and a perception of shared self-interest.(81) That their shortsighted legislative plan was one of “oppression” and “injustice”(82) is beyond question. They sought to gain land through enactment, rather than effort, and then to enslave the Tahitian male population to work that land for them.

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:51 | #

Isn’t Pitcairn’s an example for GT’s micro communities?

Does GT support racial aliens living within the microcommunity (as slaves or otherwise)?

OT, but there’s a review of a MQ essay by Salter up at TOO:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-Salter.html

Here’s the Salter essay:

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/SalterMQXLVIII-3.pdf

It looks like there’s nothing new for those who are already familiar with Salter’s EGI work, but it gives an interesting historical account of the suppression of the implications of kin selection (as well as group selection) by Marxist scientists like Lewontin and PC neo-Darwinians like Dawkins.

Does the BNP talk about EGI, i.e. specifically referring to Salter’s work and using that terminology?  I haven’t seen any of the nationalist parties in Germany do so yet.  It seems to be an underutilized resource at the moment.

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:27 | #

The following paper might be of interest to Desmond and GT (though perhaps they’re already aware of it):

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Papers/2006/2006-12_paper.pdf

It was referenced in Salter’s MQ essay.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:19 | #

The issue of factionalism would still exist for the Pitcairn community even if racial aliens were not involved. However, because the English had taken racial aliens as wives, it appears it was less a race issue than a class issue. Or possibly it was as Stoddard suggested, the presence of the under-Man. The majority of Christian’s allies were not just revolting against the harsh treatment of Capt. Bligh and the Royal Navy, but indeed were men, drunken and slovenly, who never had truck nor trade with civilization and would seek to undermine it no matter whether the society was Utopian or not.

Mussolini talked, although not directly, about EGI in THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM.

The Fascist conception of life is a religious one (7), in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the in­dividual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution.

Salter’s issue with universal altruism is understandable in that his treatise OGI is prescriptive. In that framework , UA, makes no sense. However, the conundrum still exists, and was described by Darwin himself, that as man advances in civilization, altruism (or what he calls its incidental by-product, sympathy) rises until it extends not just to men of other nations and other races but to all sentient beings. Possibly I’ve missed it in Salter’s writing, but to date, I don’t see how he squares that circle.

Also, the Brown paper was interesting. It concludes that as the wealth of society converges the fertility gain through risk taking essentially disappears. Yet entrepreneurial risk takers still exist. If it is no longer adaptive, i.e. leaving more offspring, then why the continued pursuit?

Posted by GenoType on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:28 | #

Isn’t Pitcairn’s an example for GT’s micro communities?

The only thing Pitcairn Isle has in common with one of GT’s micro-communities is a small population.

As Madison said “The tendency to faction, he explained, was “sown in the nature of man”.

It is natural as, say, racialism v. anti-racialism or producers v. parasites.

White underclass kids shouldn’t die to install upperclass “racialists” (who value easy money over race) at the head of the present judeo-economic regime.

Race should be our religion - not the pursuit of easy money.

Posted by ??? on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:43 | #

Race should be our religion

Religion in what respect, Geno?

Posted by GenoType on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:47 | #

The majority of Christian’s allies were not just revolting against the harsh treatment of Capt. Bligh and the Royal Navy, but indeed were men, drunken and slovenly, who never had truck nor trade with civilization and would seek to undermine it no matter whether the society was Utopian or not.

Bond service (oftentimes for life), workhouses, and being pressed into military service has a tendency to do that to a man.  A man without hope is nihilistic.

Easy money “racialism,” if empowered tomorrow, wouldn’t last.  And it wouldn’t take two centuries to bring it down.  Bank on it.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:03 | #

Mussolini talked, although not directly, about EGI in THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM.

How did a socialist editor get to that point?

It could be very instructive to learn that.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:46 | #

‘The Theory of Mind as Pure Act’ by Gentile, apparently, Daniel.

http://www.archive.org/details/thetheoryofminda00gentuoft

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:09 | #

You can see all’s not quite right with Fletcher Christian just from the portrait of him in the entry.  He looks turbulent, angry — look at his eyes.  Look at his mouth. 

Compare his face with the steady, untroubled face depicted in Captain Bligh’s portrait next to it. 

Judging from that portrait Fletcher Christian was already “trouble” before he was even on board the Bounty:  whoever painted him already captured that on canvas.

Posted by skippy on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:12 | #

Wikipedia:

There is no portrait or drawing extant of Fletcher Christian that was drawn from life. Bligh described Christian as “5 ft. 9 in. high [175.26 cm]. Dark Swarthy Complexion. Hair - Blackish or very dark brown. Make - Strong. A Star tattooed [sic] on his left Breast, and tattooed on the backside. His knees stand a little out and he may be called a little Bowlegged. He is subject to Violent perspiration, particularly in his hand, so that he Soils anything he handles.”[citation needed]

Posted by SM on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:01 | #

Um…

I wrote a history of the mutineer events on Pitcairn and history of the Mutiny for Wikipedia.

I talked very cogently about the coup on the island and what precipitated it and its order of events and the after math. And a little about the dynamic that precipitated the mutiny. (And correct: it wasn’t Bligh who was not ‘brutal’.)

What I wrote is mostly gone, after being up there for a year unchanged.

....There is something downright insane inside many men—and this culture that tolerates and profits that insanity—that he dislikes truth—especially about gender.

It is bizarre.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:25 | #

I wrote a history of the mutineer events on Pitcairn and history of the Mutiny for Wikipedia.

Are you sure that it wasn’t written on a bathroom wall instead?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:52 | #

Monitor, why do you worship God?  Is it out of love or fear; and which of the two is the more noble?  The same motivation(s) is what motivates secular WNs, the desire to see our beloved people endure and self-interested fear at the consequences of not so doing.

P.S. Have you ever signed in a “Gorbuduc”?

Posted by Frank on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:17 | #

Religion in what respect, Geno?

It’s a value judgement, so it’s inherently religious.

Man A is an individualist and views the world as individuals.

Man B is a nationalist and views the world as nations and other groups.

Their difference of values and views is religious. To believe firmly that a member of a race ought to protect its own people as many here believe is to be deeply religious on that point. Similarly, any sort of political movement is going to have values and beliefs - that is it will be religious.

Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:30 | #

What becomes more and more apparent each time I return to MR, is that the animus against Christendom (i.e., Trinitarian Christianity of a European sort- such as Calvinism, and Anglicanism, as opposed to American deviations such as Darbyite Dispensationalism a la Swaggart, Falwell, Robertson, and Bakker, and its’ subsequent increasingly stupid deviations) becomes more and more irrational over time. Men who used to be civilized, are becoming more and more bestial in common discourse over time. Is that ‘evolution’ or ‘DEvolution’? Is that Western,or is it merely a ‘reversion to barbarianism’? I would surmise the latter…..

In the matter of the Bounty, Fletcher was no ‘Christian.’ Do you think the name means nothing, or the irony of the situation in its’ historical milieu means less? Christendom was required by adherence to the Mosaic Law, to forbid mixed-race unions.
That stellar paragraph above puts it all into a shining light:

“He held his head up in the glare of the lamp—a head vigorously
modelled into deep shadows and shining lights—a head powerful and
misshapen with a tormented and flattened face—a face pathetic and
brutal: the tragic, the mysterious, the repulsive mask of a nigger’s
soul.”

What better description could I find for the utter gut disgust I see at the face of every Nigger? They are not Adam’s seed, they are a bestial kind that has been foisted on Christendom since the Jews began the slave trade to the New World…. And while my view may seem harsh, it is what the West believed, precisely due to Christendom, and not to Evolution.

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/‘fit-for-treasons-stratagems-and-spoils…’/

This racial exclusion has (over the last 75-100 years) been obfuscated, purposely downplayed, and even ‘pooh-poohed’ by theological Liberals, who, many times it must be noted, got their education from Jewish rabbis, rather than the Apostolic Fathers. In short, since the rise of Marx, race-specific norms that once held as almost sacrosanct, have been whittled away bit by bit. As I’ve written, it was Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” that gave ‘muticulturalism its’ most vital boost, for “Darwin’s starting point was the abolitionist belief in blood kinship, a ‘common descent’ of all human beings.”

-http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/charles-and-harriet-sittin-in-a-tree/

This view of Darwin would go a long way to describing the events on the Bounty, if that hatred of Christendom’s racial exclusionary morality was coming undone in the wake of the [sic] Enlightenment’s hyper-rationalism. Less than 100 years sepearate Fletcher Christian from Charles Darwin… but they both wanted to taste ‘forbidden fruit’ and were searching for it, in the same ‘uncharted waters’ of the soul…

But, more importantly than that, all subsequent analyses of the ‘race question’ have to take into consideration the role of propaganda- Darwinian as well as Marxist.

“[A Soviet (atheist) book on anthropology articulated the Marxist, soviet atheist position unambiguously, when Nesturkh stated: “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic [i.e., Christian] conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”- found in Nesturkh, Mikhail, the Origin of Man, (Moscow, 1959), p. 3276(?) quoted in Weisman, op. cit. ‘”

-http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/mitochondrial-eve-proves-scripture…for-whites/

IF, therefore, Christendom’s recent headlong infatuation with ‘strange flesh’- be it that of negroes or sodomites- is a departure from the earlier Christendom’s/Europe’s fear and disgust of the “repulsive mask of a nigger’s
soul,” then we need to ask ourselves, ‘...who hath bewitched us?’ [Gal. 3:1]

I think you’d find it is the same old enemy, that was there at Calvary. And no, thank you. The Promise of the Gospel is NOT for ‘all men, everywhere.’ God is not an indiscriminate pimp, much like the men of the Bounty. His choice is for ONE spouse, ONE race, ONE seed of Adam’s loins…and no other.

http://thecaucasianliteraryreview.blogspot.com/2009/06/woo-woo-not-dotted.html

Posted by GenoType on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:46 | #

Daesin,

“At early stages of development, when the level of income is low, higher degree of risk aversion has an adverse effect on fertility and reproductive success, whereas at higher levels of income, higher degree of risk aversion has a beneficial effect on reproductive success.” - Galor and Michalopoulos, 2006

Overall the study vindicates much of what I’ve expressed at Majority Rights, including the heritability of risk aversion, so it will be ignored.  Exceptions will include our tiny handful of sociopolitical entrepreneurs and those who mistakenly or nefariously equate evolutionary success with numbers alone.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:15 | #

Overall the study vindicates much of what I’ve expressed at Majority Rights, including the heritability of risk aversion, so it will be ignored.

It’s been a conundrum since Darwin published his great work.

“The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him.

In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”

He then goes on to explain how evolution mitigates the “advantage”, in the end resigning himself to

We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is most difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.

How have you resolved the puzzle?

Posted by GenoType on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:09 | #

How have you resolved the puzzle?

“All things must pass, nothing abides” – Heraclitus.

Forgotten by many in the world of neo-Darwinism is the Greek sense of interdependence between core dualities and of mental-physical balance.  In conflict numbers compensate for error, which is magnified by hubris and spinelessness.  To break a complex but fragile system, if given a choice between a small population of risk-tolerant individuals and a larger population of the risk-averse I would choose the former.  Throughout this population I would identify prospective sociopolitical entrepreneurs having the intelligence and character traits necessary to hold the operation together, grow it, drain away or neutralize the enemy’s risk-tolerant guard dogs, and kill its risk-averse “leadership.” 

Darwin’s imprecise language is not helpful.  Does frugality mean penny-pinching or economy? The Scot’s moral sternness, celibacy, and marrying late – do these indicate an irrational fear of women, Christian conditioning, or selfishness?  It doesn’t matter. Our disciplined, “far-seeing,” and “sagacious” Scot has effectively neutered himself.  If a genetic component was involved in the neutering, the Scot’s line was doomed at conception.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:17 | #

Darwin’s analysis of Scots and the Irish seemed mired in, dare I say, stereotypes.  Both lines are still extant, of sufficiently high quality and will be in future if protected from mongrelization, dysgenic birth patterns, a sub-replacement birth rate and unsecured living space.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:25 | #

It seems like there’s a difference between Southern Irish and Scots, but the Scots are supposed to be Irish originally.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:44 | #

If one were to put a large group of Scots in a room and a large Irish group next to them, lets say they all wear exactly the same clothes and dont speak (ie no accent clues) I think I would be pretty well certain of being able to tell the groups apart. Individuals maybe not but groups…yes.

Doesnt mean they are not closely related groups but there are enough outward differences. I couldnt even say what they are but I know them when I see them.

That Darwin passage is not very scientific is it. It could be just as much the difference between a majority catholic vs majority protestant culture.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:43 | #

“I think I would be pretty well certain of being able to tell the groups apart. Individuals maybe not but groups…yes.”

I totally agree. I guess they intermarried heavily with the Picts? Kill the men, rape the women - usual story…?

I’m Ulster Irish, Scottish, English, and French in that order btw.

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:19 | #

To break a complex but fragile system, if given a choice between a small population of risk-tolerant individuals and a larger population of the risk-averse I would choose the former.—GT

We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today?  We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its “realities,” we do not believe that they will last.  The ice that still supports people today has become very thin; the wind that brings the thaw is blowing; we ourselves who are homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all to thin “realities.”—Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:01 | #

all too thin

Posted by Q on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:25 | #

The ice that still supports people today has become very thin; the wind that brings the thaw is blowing; we ourselves who are homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all to thin “realities.”

Modern liberalism, postmodernism, and Jewish supremacism… are not thin ice. They form an almost impenetrable amalgam. The term “thin ice”, however, can apply to the foundation that supports the economic structure in the West.

The question is: If the economy suddenly collapses, will the Lefts’ grip on governmental, media, and social institutions collapse along with it? Or, will the resulting turmoil only serve as an opportunity for the Left to install their totalitarian socialist state?

Posted by GenoType on Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:53 | #

Daesin,

To break a complex but fragile system, if given a choice between a small population of risk-tolerant individuals and a larger population of the risk-averse I would choose the former.—GT

We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today?  We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its “realities,” we do not believe that they will last.  The ice that still supports people today has become very thin; the wind that brings the thaw is blowing; we ourselves who are homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all to thin “realities.”—Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

Nothing built by man is outside the ability of man to destroy.  System complexity and vulnerability are inescapably linked.  Opportunities for unraveling a system arise upon the realization that its security and logistical requirements always conflict.  Necessary for devising plans to unravel a system is general knowledge of its requirements, analytical ability, and the technical expertise of specialists.