|
|
|
Nationalism’s ownership of the Levellers’ legacy As the conversation between James and myself on his post detailing the sociobiological history of Euroman has drifted towards some thoughts of my own on the doomed Levellers of the English civil war period, I thought I might post those thoughts here in the following form.
A year and a half before Charles Stuart’s beheading, officers and men of the New Model Army (which had just driven the forces of the king out of London, and set up headquarters at Putney) had gathered along with commoners at St Mary’s Church. They were there to debate the rights of free Englishmen, the meaning of sovereignty and consent, and the future Constitution of England, all which they did over the course of fifteen days from 28th October to 11th November. They were the very antithesis of a rabble and a wondrous demonstration of the creativity and high-minded principle which abide among the ordinary and unassuming like water in the rocks.
St Mary’s Putney still stands today, hard by the bridge over the river. Emblazoned on a plaque above the transcept is a single sentence uttered by Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, a Leveller, member of Parliament, and the highest ranking officer present in those fifteen days. It was the enduring sentiment, and it reads, “For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he.” The Putney Debates resonate strongly with liberals, and have an honoured place in their socio-political iconography as a watershed for the rights-based liberty of the individual against the over-bearing power of the state. But Rainsborough’s truism, so plainly of its time in its usage, is also of its time in its relational certainties. They are not the certainties of present-day liberals. They do not relate to bloodless civic entities, each induced by the philosophical gods to unfetter his or her (or whatever’s) individual will while domiciled in the constitutional space otherwise known as England. They relate to “the free people of England”, in the words of the Leveller Manifesto of 1649, actually titled An Agreement Of The Free People of England, signed by Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne – “Freeborn John”, as he was known – and leading Levellers William Walwyn, Thomas Prince, and Richard Overton. The text styled England as “this distressed nation” and, most interestingly, “this Common-wealth the land of our Nativity”. Rainsborough’s England, then, was not at all the neutral administrative space of the liberal rationalist who would come a century after, nor neutral at all but the home we nationalists of today would recognise, where mutual belonging and fellow-feeling bestowed meaning and worth upon the life of every Englishman and woman. The English Civil Wars are situated in the long (and, obviously, on-going) struggle of the Anglo-Saxon sons and daughters of the soil for deliverance from the Norman heel, and thence from all arbitrary power. Lilburne – as near to an English nationalist as one could get in that religious age - actually wrote of common law as a Norman Yoke. It is easy for us as nationalists today to understand the instinctive sense of English peoplehood which imbued and inspired Lilburne and all the other Levellers. They were populists, and could command the stated support of a third of the populace of London. But they were a minority in the New Model Army. While all the parliamentarian forces made war on the degrading, subjugating power of absolute monarchy, the majority did not support the cause of a people’s participatory democracy, as conceived, for example, by Rainsborough who, after uttering his celebrated dictum at Putney, said:
And therein is the outline of a second struggle of that time. The greater part of the senior officers or Grandees, including Oliver Cromwell, the future Lord Protector, had fought not for a parliament with supreme authority over the law but for a constitutionally sovereign parliament above the people. They fought not to give the people an equal vote but to restrict the vote to landowners like themselves. They rejected the Levellers’ insistence that the people, not their elected representatives, are the final source of authority, and must be so because, in the words of the Leveller’s Manifesto:
Nothing is new. Nothing really changes. Nor would it change after the crushing of Leveller mutinies at Bishopsgate, Banbury, Andover and Burford by forces under Cromwell’s command, all in April and May 1649. That proved to be the tipping point. The great London funerals for the murders of Rainsborough in Pontefract in 1648 (in a bungled Royalist kidnap attempt), and Robert Lockyer, executed by Cromwell pour encourager les autres after the Bishopsgate mutiny, were forgotten. The last full-throated Anglo-Saxon cry for all the people’s freedom and for fair-dealing died away. It was not, after all, the time for a politics of the people. It was the time for the modern, and the modernist understanding of the individual and his unfettering will and, thereby, a novel freedom abstracted from its ground in human presence and affirmation. As the hiatus that was Cromwell’s authoritarian, puritan rule passed, the path was open for power elitism to slowly reinvent itself in the form of the elected representatives of the people and all those who enjoyed special access to them. Ahead lay Lockean subjectivity, complete with the tabulu rasa, which would take hold in the next generation of elites looking for some promising ideology of human artifice to sink all trace of the populism and naturalism that, for a few short years, had lit the darkness, and which had ... indeed, could have … no place in their own scheme of things. Further ahead still lay revolution in France and radical ideas of a social progress which somehow left out the human in substance, and ideas of equality which left out the human in scale; bringing us to where we are today, beset by all manner of deadly and estranging harms but without that recourse to self and kind and nature which the generation of the England Civil Wars had through the voices of the Levellers. As the urban industrial era solidified so Man became more and more a creature of caesura and of mere socio-economic import. The Levellers’ cause, especially Rainsborough’s famous dictum, was not purloined exactly but re-interpreted in the only way it could be: as a somewhat picturesquely doomed but nevertheless noble struggle for the franchise and an interpretation of fairness in terms of social conflict and economic inequality. The real principle ... the cohering principle of being and belonging that animates and explains the Rainsborough dictum (which liberal individualism does not) may be formulated as:
… and that’s what was lost to working-class solidarity and the nebulous ideal of social justice. The capitalist stood in for Lilburne’s Norman. The new political Grandees deftly drew a veil over their Cromwellian proclivities and jumped into the moral shoes of the Levellers. Even so, it is not liberals or their socialist offspring but nationalists who are the Lilburnes and Rainsboroughs ... the passionate advocates for the people … the populists of our time. For one thing we actually know who the people are (ie, not Africans or Pakistani Muslims or Roma, or whatever else 21st century Grandees like to claim). For another, the decades of Establishment destructiveness towards the native British people are far more onerous than any transgressions of Charles 1st upon the religion and estates of his subjects, and it is nationalists who are reminding the Establishment of that. It is nationalists reminding the English people that we all enjoy a negative right not to be subjected to government abuse and coercion. Each of our folk has the right not to be cast down and oppressed for his or her love of our people and his or her desire for their freedom and good, and may bring opinions to that effect (or, indeed, to the effect that we do not love Africans or Pakistani Muslims or Roma or whatever) to the public space ... the St Mary’s of our time ... as freely as anyone else. Fairness requires that those opinions are heard and, moreover, respected by our arrogant latter-day Grandees and, if they are the majority opinion of our people, acted upon. The Levellers’ fight for fair-dealing, then, is ours now, and in its fundamentals it has not greatly changed. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 17 Oct 2020 23:39 | # The book “The Great Leveler” discusses the inevitability of violence in the cycle of civilization. It gets into the gory details but, as academics are wont to do, it can obscure the bigger picture. Here’s the cycle of civilization: Roving gangs force individual able-bodied men into joint sacrifice of their flesh blood and bone in an aristocratic militia defending their common territory. “Property rights” emerge. The aristocracy protects these properties in exchange for payment, best characterized as property insurance premiums. This nascent civilization is sustainable because its foundation in the flesh blood and bone of the able-bodied men is nourished by “the economy”. HOWEVER As the civilization’s wealth grows, the aristocracy seeks to unburden itself of both the need to pay its _own_ premiums and to sacrifice their _own_ flesh blood and bone. This it does by shifting from property insurance premiums to taxes on economic activity and using the tax revenue to pay young men, so taxed, to do the sacrificing as “soldiers”. Religious leaders are then in a position offer the corrupt aristocracy a de facto income stream by indoctrinating soldiers of a “moral duty” to sacrifice their flesh blood and bone to the aristocracy. Thus a deadly embrace forms between a corrupt secular and corrupt religious magisteria. This deadly embrace corrupts all other other institutions, such as media and academia. The young men, upon whose flesh blood and bone civilization is truly founded, are so handicapped in acquiring “property” to provide a homestead that they can no longer outbid “the economy” for the fertile years of young women. “The Great Leveler” tears down civilization until young men are, once again, able to out-bid the economy for the fertile years of young women. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 03:18 | # Daniel, nationalism is not “social concern”. Ontologically speaking, its most fundamental and characteristic concern concerns the priorness of the essential principle … the principle of life’s continuity … effecting itself as a re-statement and human contextualisation of the living organism’s eternal struggle to be. 4
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 04:13 | #
You can say that there are other aspects to it but… Of course nationalism is a social concern, a social concern, however, largely for delimiting accountability in priority to boundaries and interests of one’s own people. We disagree and you are wrong. .... P.S., The “closed” vs open function for new posts apparently does not work from a non Super Admin position, unbeknownst to me before opening the post - it just opens the post when you publish it - and that is why you have 3 copies of the Kristopher Kime story. As good as the woman is who presents the story, you might care to close the second and third copy. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 04:22 | # Roving gangs force individual able-bodied men into joint sacrifice of their flesh blood and bone in an aristocratic militia defending their common territory. “Property rights” emerge. The aristocracy protects these properties in exchange for payment, best characterized as property insurance premiums. This nascent civilization is sustainable because its foundation in the flesh blood and bone of the able-bodied men is nourished by “the economy”. Salterian translation: Each man of the tribe, whose relation to one another does not exceed that of third cousins, instinctively senses that the defence of his neighbours’ children, even at the cost of his life, is the optimum guarantee that his neighbours will also fight to the death in defence of his own children - the defence of his own children being the cause for which every single man of any tribe would, at a moment’s notice, give his own life. First-order genetic interests prevail. Tribes who are successful in this defence establish their claim on the land in the eyes of all others, and the land itself, as the giver of sustenance to the tribe, becomes a second-order genetic interest whose defence, therefore, functions as a proxy for the defence of the tribes’ children. Tribes whose claim is to bountiful land with excess resources experience intra-tribal male competition for mate selection, whereby males with more resources can outbid males with only their personal physical advantages to offer potential mates. Females instinctively understand that wealthy males can secure the protection and sustenance of their future children more effectively than males with only personal physical advantages. Thus the proxy of land engenders the proxy of wealth as a trump card in male mate selection. The preservation of wealth in the family line, or the getting of it through the “advantageous” marriage of the daughters of the family engenders social hierarchy, on the basis of which harems form. Poor males now go mateless and must seek to compete through resource predation on the land of neighbouring tribes. Honour cultures form around male self-sacrifice. Successful tribes increase their number and, thereby, the range of their genetic interests. Those of them with sufficient excess resources free their most innovative and intelligent males to resolve remaining existential challenges, including the question of how to understand the thing that is. The idea of deity forms. Faith forms. A faith hierarchy forms. Tribal gods act as proxies for the tribal life-cause, and slowly the distance grows between the real fundamentals of the tribe’s existence, there from the beginning, and those of the developing and removed social forms. Freedom from existential struggle plus innovation plus complexity itself forms civilisations, and in civilisation other modes of social hierarchy form based on intra-tribal economic predation including kingly and aristocratic abuses. Politics form as a counterweight. At Runnymede the Great_Leveller_As_Corrective first exploits those politics to tear down the systems of abuse. Periodically, the politics fail and civil war ensues. The king stands on the scaffold before the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall, the executioner behind him and the block in front. He speaks to the vast crowd gathered all around, there to witness the death of the old order and the re-birth of a more ancient and naturalistic one. “A sovereign and a subject,” the king tells his audience, “are clean different things.” History demurs and the axe falls. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 05:16 | # We disagree and you are wrong. Five years ago we disagreed that “the social” is foundational, that it is some over-arching and prior category of human organisation. But you no longer seem to think that. You seem now to claim a place for it higher up the causal chain, which is not something we would disagree on in itself. My specific disagreement is on the basis that a social politics is not in itself nationalism, which concerns kin naturally and authentically orienting towards one another and to non-kin. The social is at one remove, and would, in my view, concern non-kin based orientation as errors of world-perception and self-identification. The social is the consequence of our self-estrangement and alienation. That is the meaning I give it. You still want to give it a greater meaning. 7
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 05:58 | #
I do prioritize our relative group interests (praxis) over abstract principles ideas from or beyond nature, or wherever, “pure nature”, where you say your principles (or whatever) come from…looking upon praxis as the calibrative priority, these other concerns provide feedback, sometimes crucial feedback to our relative interests.
8
Posted by Survival of the species on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 05:59 | # ...and in the group concept is the natural concern for species - survival of the species. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2020 08:06 | # I never said that there is no place for your ideas, just that they must orient along some part of the general existential and identitarian dynamic. They could not be in conflict with it. I am not at all sure that you can accept that. You have certainly not demonstrated any tendency to accept the uniform criticism of one or two ideological points that you have made, clinging on to them even to the point of isolating yourself. On the question of the abstract, none of us - neither you, James or myself - are dealing in simple, direct, physical action. We are thinking people. Everything we say has abstraction as its reality, therefore, and not the “hard” reality of the physical world beyond the organism. It’s that mind-body thing again! But it’s not somehow wrong. Yes, there is a point where intellectual abstraction produces “the abstract” in itself ... where it has shifted into an idee fixe of some kind or where the logic chain has been attenuated further than its own relation to the lived-life can sustain. Then it has detached from its proper descriptive function, and entered upon a prescriptive, ordering role that may be dangerous. By this splinter in their eyes, intellectuals have killed far more people than mere soldiers. But it’s thankfully rare, and to appeal to that in consideration of someone else’s thinking more often than not indicates a desire to invalidate that thinking by the sin of association. The plank of abstraction is in all our eyes, and inevitably so. Yours no less than anybody else’s. 10
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:48 | #
My ideas are entirely oriented to the interests of identarian/ethnonational interests and are not in conflict with it. They are in conflict with a Jewish marketing campaign, deception and misdirection. Anyone, ANYONE, who pays the least attention to what I say, the stories that I post and what concerns me, will see where my loyalties and dynamic concerns are; if they can be bothered to look further they will see that I am applying a subtler level of articulation to counter and correct the deception, but that the concerns for ethnonationalism/identitarianism are not in conflict as such (on the contrary). The naming is in conflict at times f for important reasons of avoiding misdirection. I have explained a thousand times, that my (more articulate) platform can accommodate those who I recognize as basically of good will toward ethnonationalism/identitarianism while unbeknownst to them, they are being subtly misguided by the marketing campaign. When they posit “the left’ as the antagonist, I understand that they mean Marxist international/anti national left and Cultural Marxist anti-White Left. Which is fine, those are the enemies (and they are liberal in their implication for our borders and boundaries), but I am on the look out for misdirection of not articulating the matter further, so as to falsely suggest, in accordance with the marketed characterology, that all matters corresponding with the left are antagonistic to White interests, getting people to chase after red capes so as to mislead them into overcompensating reactions, such as grasping after an idea that nationalism is some kind of pure, no account natural phenomenon, as opposed to Nationalism being a matter of delimitation of a social group, which provides accountability - and though it is, Whites are repulsed by the abuse of rhetoric against them in this realm of praxis, to the extent that “socialization” is red caped, i.e., taken to correspond to service to aliens rather than a union of common interests with ones own kind as a priority of accountability. As for the tutorial on abstraction, it is a strawman. I guess this strawman is to incorrectly suggest my beef, let alone the beef, with Cartesianism is abstraction. That’s not it and anyone who reads what I say should be able to gather that. I’ve said this before. The problem is not Cartesian inquiry and provisional, objectively detached concerns, the problem is not prioritizing our people’s interests first, as a human ecology, a genus, a species, a homeostatic system, which can be sent into runaway through people’s own blind accord or as a result of being misdirected by enemies when in that estranged, detached position, which is short on social accountability and which philosophers call Cartesian in the negative sense of Cartesian anxiety. As I have said, the proper formulation and healthy priority would appear to be the species system as the calibration, while objective inquiries would provide crucial feedback: e.g., if James is able to demonstrate our losing critical nature to a eusocial trajectory, losing the sovereign individuality of our distinct nature, feedback would be provided along with perhaps a suggestion of prescription for correction of this misdirection within the realm of praxis, which is possible because our first priority, of secure systemic boundaries and accountability thereof, has been established (we are not merely reacting). 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:36 | # We went through this the other day. The verdict is in. “White left - Hitler right” does not describe the nationalist array of forms. You were told at the beginning it would be rejected by everybody. It has been rejected by everybody. Why don’t you listen? Hermeneutics: an elitist prescriptive obscurantism wholly inappropriate to an instinctively informing, naturalistic politics (which no doubt developed in you instinctively). Social construction: your personal uni thing. Not anyone else’s, though, because it’s sociological, and we are ethnic nationalists. In its relational certainties and imperatives ethnic nationalism is a classic emergent form, not a work of artifice got from the world around us. Cartesian anxiety! Three of four years ago I had to explain to you that part of Cartesian subjectivity which is rejected by Heidegger, and that which is not. Now you are trying to wield Descartes as a club with which to beat everyone and lever your own self onto a pedestal. White postmodernity: Why not white modernity? Why “post” anything, if you do not merely want to parade your intellectualism? Better still, why not reformed or non-reductive modernity, which actually leads somewhere and isn’t just a self-promotional label. And so forth. It appears that the only idea that works in certain circumstances is “Red Caping”. But, typically, you use it as a club to beat fellow nationalists, which seems to be a large part of what you think this is all about. Correctives, homeostasis, unity ... you have fashioned a private world of noisy prescriptions that don’t survive a cursory inspection, and if they did would still only amount to saying the obvious. Ours is the politics of care for those to whom one belongs and who belong to oneself. The only intellectually challenging parts of it are (a) determining its foundation, and (b) determining its upward development as structure ... its constitution of parts and processes. You had a golden opportunity here to participate in that creative work, something distinct from the (at best) bookish commentary of everybody else. Instead you chose, if you even had any choice, to follow your own idiosyncrasies; and here you are now, alone, insisting on your rightness, probably not even realising that the meaning of it all is yet more analysis of the world when we already have analysis coming out of our ears. 12
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:59 | #
Your Boomer-sucker verdict is in. I’ve already explained how people do not have to use the terms that I use, the essence is the same, only my semiotics direct the path more precisely and fend off midirection (such as your foolshness) for those who bother to understand.
“White left - Hitler right” is not a phrase that I use, so quotes should not be around it. But it does indeed sort the array of national forms, because White ethnonational left corresponds with unionization while Hitler was an imperialist, not a nationalist.
Listen idiot, I have explained why I use it, why “everybody” is going along with Jewish marketing campaign, including your duped self; how the better thinking can be brought around with the kind of help that you, in your antagonistic egomania would never lend, while the rest could be understood as I have explained, where well meaning as correctly understanding the Left in antagonistic forms, as Internationalist-anti-Nationalist Marxism and Cultural anti-White Left, but amiss, particularly when going along with the marketed characterology of “the left” as a red caping to mislead them past the application of the left’s salutary concepts to White ethnonationalism without introduction of the right’s back doors and manipulable rigidities, as third position would do.
It hasn’t been rejected by everybody, idiot. And I just explained how I can and do work with the less clear understanding of the matter. Furthermore, getting it “accepted” was not helped by you to, say the least. Your egomaniac autobiography desperately depends on the Jewish coloring book that you’ve been handed; and with that, you have tried to do reverse Derrida (or something like that) deconstruction with me, trying to destroy everything and anything that I say, no matter how good it is at making sense, and bizarrely, especially if it is good, because your gargantuan, unmerited ego apparently cannot accept it. And so the real question is at once asked and answered - “why won’t you, GW, listen.” We know the answer, you will not listen, your boomerism is in its late stages.
Ha ha ha! What a stupid, false definition of hermeneutics ...which no doubt, developed in your unthinking reaction to red capes of the matter that Heidegger and his students would rather use (when used in our interests) as clarifying, not obfuscating, process of inquiry to re engage with the interactive world while leaving Cartesian estrangement behind; come back from the estrangement in necessary liberation from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity if one wants to engage in human levels of thought and being. Can one tell fictional, obscurantist stories? Yes, like the red capes that you chase after. Can hermeneutics tell non-fiction stories as well - indeed necessary for that, for example to see beyond the truth that while some may have better skills in a particular episode, others might have better skills that are revealed through cultural pattern, which require this type of individual and not that.
First of all, how is something social, “personal”? Furthermore, as anything, if it was EVER discussed at “uni” that means to you it must be totally bad and needs to be destroyed. We know how your lame autobiography works; and how you needed me to be your foil to show me up. Problem for you is, you can’t do it without strawmanning my offerings, as you do in these comments once again.
Not anyone else’s? Not true. Especially not of the more intelligent who will not chase after the red cape misrepresentations and will instead hear what I say, for example here, among many other places. You also react to the red caping of sociology, its group unit of analysis, exactly as the YKW would want, because it is of the most central concerns to nationalists - to get it right, that is, as opposed to how they would deploy it against “ethnic nationalist” dupes like yourself in reaction, so fixated that you are to insist that sociology, the group unit of analysis, is the only unit of analysis that mine or any a better ethnonational platform might entertain.
And relation certainties (near as they can be relied upon to replicate, anyway) and their emergent forms are facilitated and not messed with in the platform that I bring to bear, while misleading artifice is diagnosed (such as red capes) by way of our emergent intelligence and its other non-Cartesian, necessary interactive engagement in the corrective feedback of praxis.
You said and Heidegger said, nothing which contradicts what I have said about Cartesianism. I have explained this to you dozens of times now. I did not say to not use Cartesianism (for example, use Cartesian coordinates in microwave technology), I said that better philosophers, Heidegger included, are trying to help people to not get stuck in Cartesian estrangement from Praxis.
Unbelievably stupid and false. It is not even original, the false accusation that I am trying to wield Descartes as a club (or an insult term) came first from Bowery. It isn’t true, it is not a personal thing against others or for the sake of setting myself on a pedestal, lol. It is to explain what better philosophy means by Cartesianism, why it is important (e.g., why Heidegger would say “Kant was still Cartesian” as in, going wrong), how it represents the apex and onset of an outmoded philosophy that you, yourself double down on in reaction to red capes against better understanding.
As I just indicated, you can’t get over modernity; its part your STEM predilection, part your autobiographical egomania that requires the foil and red cape of mis represented post modernity as opposed to its proper form, White post modernity. And part your stupidity, as it has been explained to you by me and others that there are problems to modernity, its performance requirements that need to be moved past
..and so that is why “Post” Modernity, to move past the destructive aspects of modernity, for example so that it is clear that because something is not new, that does mean that it is not valuable and should necessarily be changed, subject to habitual unthinking experiment of the prior epoch in faith that change necessarily leads to progress. As opposed to the da da hyper relative, ironic nonsense of the red cape, White Post Modernity thus values tradition where it is benign and helpful to our praxis (our people) and especially does not see our inherited forms as something that should be subject to arbitrary experimentation. It includes all the better understandings of Post Modern concepts that I have worked out while also availing the best of Modernity and Tradition where it should, excluding where destructive.
How is this parading my intellecutualism? It should be obvious that I am providing important help, not trying to show off. I have done this for eight years and you know what GW? you have tried vainly to parade your mental superiority “a quanta superiority” by attacking and trying to destroy any concept, especially if it is good, useful and important, that I bring because your ego won’t stand it. You have shown yourself to be a liar and a sadist and it is over.
Just because you make a proclamation, that White Post Modernity leads nowhere doesn’t make it remotely true. The sad fact is that I have shown now in countless occasions how it provides for coherence, accountability, agency (and no, I don’t need you), warrant, correctabilty - the autonomy and sovereignty of self corrective systems which, as non reactive can coordinate our own with other human ecologies, and pervasive ecology. It can lead to saving our people, the world, and to colonization of outer space. And since I have made this point on the order of hundreds of times, you continue to try to bury it, obfuscate it, misrepresent my motives - you have the nerve to project your motives on to me, i.e., YOU want a your self promoting label of a reformed or non-reductive modernity - all can understand how I be looking forward to the world without you.
You are an egregious liar and you force me to repeat things over and over again because you never acknowledge anything accurately, only referring to your straw men.
I’ve explained your jealous lie here. Yes, red caping is a good idea that I have, and it is one among MANY that I have; and it is not devised to beat fellow nationalists, it is used to explain the misleading games that antagonists to nationalism are deploying against them.
Nice try asshole. I don’t know where I have ever spoken about “unity” ....unionization, as an analogous concept, yes. “A private world of noisy prescriptions that don’t survive cursory inspection” .. take up a new hobby GW. They survive rigorous inspection as to what we need, despite the fact that it does not serve your ego. Correctives and homeostasis are radically important issues, of the essence of what nationalism needs to attend to.
Mine cares for our people. You prioritize your ego over the interests of our people.
You can probably get away with believing that as an Englishman ensconced in England, it may just work out in some way ..but while excluding ideas that are in no way antagonistic (except to your ego, if you insist) and would have performed the task much better if included, both for the English and for their relations to others (by the way, these are largely cultivated English ideas that I am speaking of).
No, you had a golden opportunity to participate in creative work, but you insisted on “sweeping aside” better ideas, unnecessarily, and tried to get me to be a water carrier for your boomer era reactionism.
GW, I realized a while ago that you are not as smart as I thought originally. If you were, you would appreciate, not try to attack and bury what I bring to bear; realize that it is a crucial asset, not a liability. I am not alone (though it is a typical strategy of narcissisitic personality disorder to try to make a targeted “victim” think they are, and have no choice), and not seeking ever more analysis, I am in implementation mode now, but up against an enemy that is more sophisticated than you are prepared to deal with, and that is why I am happy to leave you behind. I could ignore you, your stupid arguments only showed my offerings to be better while I tested them out. Now it is time to get down to practical implementation and I cannot be bothered with your gaslighting and straw men anymore. 13
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:11 | # ....
Your Boomer-sucker verdict is in. I’ve already explained how people do not have to use the terms that I use, the essence is the same, only my semiotics direct the path more precisely and fend off midirection (such as your foolshness) for those who bother to understand.
“White left - Hitler right” is not a phrase that I use, so quotes should not be around it. But it does indeed sort the array of national forms, because White ethnonational left corresponds with unionization while Hitler was an imperialist, not a nationalist.
Listen idiot, I have explained why I use it, why “everybody” is going along with Jewish marketing campaign, including your duped self; how the better thinking can be brought around with the kind of help that you, in your antagonistic egomania would never lend, while the rest could be understood as I have explained, where well meaning as correctly understanding the Left in antagonistic forms, as Internationalist-anti-Nationalist Marxism and Cultural anti-White Left, but amiss, particularly when going along with the marketed characterology of “the left” as a red caping to mislead them past the application of the left’s salutary concepts to White ethnonationalism without introduction of the right’s back doors and manipulable rigidities, as third position would do.
It hasn’t been rejected by everybody, idiot. And I just explained how I can and do work with the less clear understanding of the matter. Furthermore, getting it “accepted” was not helped by you to, say the least. Your egomaniac autobiography desperately depends on the Jewish coloring book that you’ve been handed; and with that, you have tried to do reverse Derrida (or something like that) deconstruction with me, trying to destroy everything and anything that I say, no matter how good it is at making sense, and bizarrely, especially if it is good, because your gargantuan, unmerited ego apparently cannot accept it. And so the real question is at once asked and answered - “why won’t you, GW, listen.” We know the answer, you will not listen, your boomerism is in its late stages.
Ha ha ha! What a stupid, false definition of hermeneutics ...which no doubt, developed in your unthinking reaction to red capes of the matter that Heidegger and his students would rather use (when used in our interests) as clarifying, not obfuscating, process of inquiry to re engage with the interactive world while leaving Cartesian estrangement behind; come back from the estrangement in necessary liberation from the arbitrary flux of mere facticity if one wants to engage in human levels of thought and being. Can one tell fictional, obscurantist stories? Yes, like the red capes that you chase after. Can hermeneutics tell non-fiction stories as well - indeed necessary for that, for example to see beyond the truth that while some may have better skills in a particular episode, others might have better skills that are revealed through cultural pattern, which require this type of individual and not that.
First of all, how is something social, “personal”? Furthermore, as anything, if it was EVER discussed at “uni” that means to you it must be totally bad and needs to be destroyed. We know how your lame autobiography works; and how you needed me to be your foil to show me up. Problem for you is, you can’t do it without strawmanning my offerings, as you do in these comments once again.
Not anyone else’s? Not true. Especially not of the more intelligent who will not chase after the red cape misrepresentations and will instead hear what I say, for example here, among many other places. You also react to the red caping of sociology, its group unit of analysis, exactly as the YKW would want, because it is of the most central concerns to nationalists - to get it right, that is, as opposed to how they would deploy it against “ethnic nationalist” dupes like yourself in reaction, so fixated that you are to insist that sociology, the group unit of analysis, is the only unit of analysis that mine or any a better ethnonational platform might entertain.
And relation certainties (near as they can be relied upon to replicate, anyway) and their emergent forms are facilitated and not messed with in the platform that I bring to bear, while misleading artifice is diagnosed (such as red capes) by way of our emergent intelligence and its other non-Cartesian, necessary interactive engagement in the corrective feedback of praxis.
You said and Heidegger said, nothing which contradicts what I have said about Cartesianism. I have explained this to you dozens of times now. I did not say to not use Cartesianism (for example, use Cartesian coordinates in microwave technology), I said that better philosophers, Heidegger included, are trying to help people to not get stuck in Cartesian estrangement from Praxis.
Unbelievably stupid and false. It is not even original, the false accusation that I am trying to wield Descartes as a club (or an insult term) came first from Bowery. It isn’t true, it is not a personal thing against others or for the sake of setting myself on a pedestal, lol. It is to explain what better philosophy means by Cartesianism, why it is important (e.g., why Heidegger would say “Kant was still Cartesian” as in, going wrong), how it represents the apex and onset of an outmoded philosophy that you, yourself double down on in reaction to red capes against better understanding.
As I just indicated, you can’t get over modernity; its part your STEM predilection, part your autobiographical egomania that requires the foil and red cape of mis represented post modernity as opposed to its proper form, White post modernity. And part your stupidity, as it has been explained to you by me and others that there are problems to modernity, its performance requirements that need to be moved past
..and so that is why “Post” Modernity, to move past the destructive aspects of modernity, for example so that it is clear that because something is not new, that does mean that it is not valuable and should necessarily be changed, subject to habitual unthinking experiment of the prior epoch in faith that change necessarily leads to progress. As opposed to the da da hyper relative, ironic nonsense of the red cape, White Post Modernity thus values tradition where it is benign and helpful to our praxis (our people) and especially does not see our inherited forms as something that should be subject to arbitrary experimentation. It includes all the better understandings of Post Modern concepts that I have worked out while also availing the best of Modernity and Tradition where it should, excluding where destructive.
How is this parading my intellecutualism? It should be obvious that I am providing important help, not trying to show off. I have done this for eight years and you know what GW? you have tried vainly to parade your mental superiority “a quanta superiority” by attacking and trying to destroy any concept, especially if it is good, useful and important, that I bring because your ego won’t stand it. You have shown yourself to be a liar and a sadist and it is over.
Just because you make a proclamation, that White Post Modernity leads nowhere doesn’t make it remotely true. The sad fact is that I have shown now in countless occasions how it provides for coherence, accountability, agency (and no, I don’t need you), warrant, correctabilty - the autonomy and sovereignty of self corrective systems which, as non reactive can coordinate our own with other human ecologies, and pervasive ecology. It can lead to saving our people, the world, and to colonization of outer space. And since I have made this point on the order of hundreds of times, you continue to try to bury it, obfuscate it, misrepresent my motives - you have the nerve to project your motives on to me, i.e., YOU want a your self promoting label of a reformed or non-reductive modernity - all can understand how I be looking forward to the world without you.
You are an egregious liar and you force me to repeat things over and over again because you never acknowledge anything accurately, only referring to your straw men.
I’ve explained your jealous lie here. Yes, red caping is a good idea that I have, and it is one among MANY that I have; and it is not devised to beat fellow nationalists, it is used to explain the misleading games that antagonists to nationalism are deploying against them.
Nice try asshole. I don’t know where I have ever spoken about “unity” ....unionization, as an analogous concept, yes. “A private world of noisy prescriptions that don’t survive cursory inspection” .. take up a new hobby GW. They survive rigorous inspection as to what we need, despite the fact that it does not serve your ego. Correctives and homeostasis are radically important issues, of the essence of what nationalism needs to attend to.
Mine cares for our people. You prioritize your ego over the interests of our people.
You can probably get away with believing that as an Englishman ensconced in England, it may just work out in some way ..but while excluding ideas that are in no way antagonistic (except to your ego, if you insist) and would have performed the task much better if included, both for the English and for their relations to others (by the way, these are largely cultivated English ideas that I am speaking of).
No, you had a golden opportunity to participate in creative work, but you insisted on “sweeping aside” better ideas, unnecessarily, and tried to get me to be a water carrier for your boomer era reactionism.
GW, I realized a while ago that you are not as smart as I thought originally. If you were, you would appreciate, not try to attack and bury what I bring to bear; realize that it is a crucial asset, not a liability. I am not alone (though it is a typical strategy of narcissisitic personality disorder to try to make a targeted “victim” think they are, and have no choice), and not seeking ever more analysis, I am in implementation mode now, but up against an enemy that is more sophisticated than you are prepared to deal with, and that is why I am happy to leave you behind. I could ignore you, your stupid arguments only showed my offerings to be better while I tested them out. Now it is time to get down to practical implementation and I cannot be bothered with your gaslighting and straw men anymore. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:40 | # Now let’s look at what your ideas could be, as useful concepts to ethnic nationalists: 1. White left. Well, instead of a pointless “specificatory structure” that is never going to be accepted by anyone, how about actually working out what the arrayal of nationalist forms really is ... how it relates and articulates internally ... whether that is a single axial arrayal or something more complex, ie, whether it is a development from a common foundation and, if it is, whether that development is in a singular line or in multiple lines ... or whether the array is multi-axial and volumetric like the liberal system. Because when you have accomplished that difficult thing you can then think about how to relate the parts to each other and to the liberal system ... so, how different kinds of nationalists today and in history themselves relate. Get to the truth regardless of the fact that it offers no opportunities to be bossy and self-promoting. 2. Hermeneutics. If you think that it is important to know how, in his awakened condition, a nationalist divines the truth of the world rather than simply hustling about ideologically within it like everybody else ... if you want to really understand and communicate what is to be awake ... then explore that, as I do. It’s interesting. But it isn’t a specificatory thing. It is about perception and reality, and the human condition. 3. Social construction. Again, it would be interesting to our politics to gain a forensic analysis of that human condition ... how personality forms, essentially, from our immersion in Time and Place. It isn’t actually constructed. It is absorbed ... it is a taking-on but not in awareness and not by conscious intention (it is not a learning process, for instance). Junk the uni stuff and think it through as a nationalist confronting his own and others’ enworldment. 4. White postmodernity. It is a vanishingly small thing to note than Derrida et al were foundationally Marxists, often Jewish Marxists, and their notion of some semi-inevitable turn or change to a new equalitarian dispensation would be wrong for our people. But it is, in any case, academic silliness to speak of a postmodern turn. Morgoth is very good on modernity. You won’t find him pretending that it can be transitioned into a new historical age, white or Judaic. The modern is what there is. It is deepening and strengthening as the enworldment of men and women becomes ever more artificialised, and they become ever more alienated from kind and estranged from their own inner principal. Because these are the real meanings of it, not the tawdry sociology-speak of post-industrialism or whatever. The only possible turn is within us, and is the turn, or awakening, to nationalism. Get onto it. 5. Correctives, unity et al. No specifying, there’s a good chap. You are not prefect, and our people’s world is not a school-room. Explain the obscure but avoid obscurantism. Avoid tortured student-prose that only makes the simple concepts in which have been dealing appear complicated. 15
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:30 | #
I haven’t said White Left alone for a long time. Nothing particularly wrong with it but it needs more specification so as not to be misrepresented, such as assholes like yourself will try to do. We’ve been through this very accusation before. So, assfuckinghole that you are, you are just making me repeat myself. First of all, dickhead, don’t try to associative me only with the word left, by jamming this association as you stupidly understand it to be, to the distraction of dozens of important ideas. And so as ever, you begin with a straw man, because you cannot deal honestly with what I’m saying. Now then. I say White Left ethnonationalism when I use the term. That closes off misrepresentation by dickheads like yourself. In fact, as usual regarding your asshole strategy, you make me repeat myself, over and over and over again raising the same strawmen that have already been dealt with at length. So, I have another good idea, before I have to spend time dismantling the rest of your dishonestly… why don’t you….. get a new hobby and go away. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:34 | # It should be obvious to any casual observer just from your usage that, far from saying something that is true of ethnic nationalism, you have carefully constructed a special pedestal for yourself, much of it out of your uni sociology stuff, from which to rain blows on other nationalists. Clearly, what you want in life is to assert yourself over everyone else. OK, there are contentions with respect to certain other nationalists, and much does need to be said (Red Caping is legitimate criticism in that case). But these have to be kept in perspective. Politics is about making common cause, not about being an ideological mafia boss out there whacking everybody who has other ideas. Ethnic nationalism, especially, has to be cohering. It has to be promulgated by persuasion, not by divisiveness and force. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:23 | #
What is obvious is that you are a liar. I have not read beyond the first sentence of your prior comment, as it began eye rollingly with a straw man as usual “the White Left” , onethat I had already dealt with exhaustively. At the moment, I cannot be bothered to get caught up in the fly paper of your endless strawmen. If I feel like addressing your bullshit later, I will. In the meantime, a warning to anyone, that all GW has EVER done, is try to misrepresent what I say because he cannot deal with it honestly. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:18 | # GW writes: Salterian translation: Yes that is a reasonable translation with elaboration to bring it into a common ansatz amenable for further dialogue. Here’s what I’d say to further translate for my “white supremacist” (in the sense of racial moral superiority) ansatz: The pre-condition of “individual able-bodied men” (in what I call “The State of Nature” or the more anthropocentric description: “State of Peace”) provides sufficient restriction of male migration hence gene flow such that territorial alienation “does not exceed that of third cousins” across the ecological range. Gene flow, hence limitation of consanguinity in this State is dominated by relatively local exchange of childless, nubile females over which individual males may contest according to their artificial selection regime (“fair contest”): their culture. Gangs are not a “fair contest” for male migration (hence territorial dominion) or access to childless nubile females. Gangs are not “Natural” in the sense I use the term. I understand the problematic nature of “Nature” but there is, I believe, sound logic grounded in the natural sciences to draw the line where I do: Between the evolution of sex and the evolution of eusociality. We moral animals—all of us—feel the sense of “unfairness” inherent in the image of two men ganging up on an individual man. Whites seem more morally sensible of fairness than most races which is explicable by their greater heritable individualism. This is why I am not shy about discussing white moral superiority to other races. This moral superiority mitigates against whites desiring to “rule over” others—making us more vulnerable to self-abasing racial egalitarian psychophysiological weapons directed at us by “roving gangs” who are, prima facie, our moral inferiors. This moral sense is the source of the morale necessary for our “joint sacrifice of their flesh blood and bone in an aristocratic militia defending their common territory”. I’m plumbing the depths of our Being for the morale to defend ourselves. My experience in attempting to bring this gift to whites thence to all humanity is that the image of individual male contention has been so overlaid with emotive memories of manifestly dysgenic forms of contest that it becomes impossible for people to consider it possible that there may be forms that are consistent with the creation of the qualities we value in Man: The Moral Animal. This is psychophysiological damage that is very difficult to deal with since it is our very moral superiority, rooted in the depths of our Being, that so strongly reacts against such dysgenics and short-circuits our rational faculties with the endless barage of mano-a-mano images concocted by Hollywood Jews: emotional pornography appealing to animals without our moral sensibility. Its tragic result: Racially conscious whites abandon their moral high ground and access to the morale necessary to fight the myriad gangs picking us off individally, and try to “ape” the psychology of their inferiors as though that were the “moral” thing to demand of other whites whose “individualism is the problem”. They’ve got us in a psychophysiological bind and we have to look carefully at the bindings for access to our unbounded morale. 19
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:10 | # Fair warning: I still have not looked at GW’s list of five misrepresentations in comment 14 above. After seeing number one - 1. White left - putting forth a strawman that I’ve already dealt with at length, it was apparent that his next four “definitions” were going to be strawmen as well. He simply constantly ignores what I say, and does this over and over again. At the moment I don’t want to be bothered even looking at his strawmen, because he has done this for years and generally speaking, I’m done with it. However, when the time is right, I will undo his misrepresentations; but not yet. A tip for the wary, if an idea is good, 95% of the time GW will attack it with all the more determination and dishonesty that he can muster. 20
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:10 | # Racism in Philosophy is described here : https://aeon.co/essays/racism-is-baked-into-the-structure-of-dialectical-philosophy We must take this offering as seriously as we take those of Daniel S. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:25 | # OK, James, let’s compare these two reproductive histories. My model flows from later in the biological history, commencing when the tribe, as the evolutionary unit, exists. You are now talking about the evolution of sex and then eusociality, as an evolutionary branch which takes in humans. I guess there is an obvious utilitarian question which arises here. Can we identify a productive evolutionary source for human eusociality by going back beyond the formation of the human tribe to the hominid troop? If not, and the universal consensus says not, then other questions have to be asked as to why you disagree. If it is only to accommodate an account of the champion which, pardon me for saying so, is weighted towards making the individual - a non-possible evolutionary unit - a contingency of evolution, then we have to ask whether somewhere here a cart and horse are facing the wrong way round. The alternative is to account for the champion without reifying a whole class of human assignment to non-reproductive behaviours in support of the reproductive fraction. Surely this is a job for Brother Occam, and the standard evolutionary account as per my model suffices? The migration of young, mateless males is explicable by the imposition of the harem system; and inter-tribal predation and expansionism with it; which then generate honour codes. The principle of the champion arises as a response to that expansionism and within the terms of the code, vesting all in the combat skills of the strongest single individual in the tribe and saving the life of the king (who, in a state of Peace, will not be the strongest warrior). I agree that Europeans appear especially given to processing “the thing that is” not simply through the fixed and universal range of emotions but by routing that process through the higher emotional machinery of the brain (to the extent that that facility is arguably, perhaps inevitably better developed than in other races). So now we are looking for an evolutionary explanation for this singular facility. A likely one is in MacDonald’s model of the small size of European groups, producing contacts on a low numerical scale with less fight/flight data for processing in the instant. No doubt there are other theories, and perhaps one somewhere that focuses not only on Europeans but also on the other two great races of the northern hemisphere, which also exhibit heightened moral calculation. The main things with all this are (a) to get the time-order right, and (b) to keep the focus on group evolution. If that is done then the question of morale and the warrior-individual can perhaps even be settled as the unconcealing natural identity of the individual warrior in the time of crisis - you and me and all good men, basically. Like the WW1 poster said, “Your country needs YOU.” 22
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:30 | # Oh really Al? As if you didn’t try to encourage GW’s gaslighting because I don’t love Hitler and Nazi Germany. What do you know to take seriously, you stupid asshole. 23
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 Oct 2020 15:45 | # GW correctly asserts: “My model flows from later in the biological history, commencing when the tribe, as the evolutionary unit, exists. You are now talking about the evolution of sex and then eusociality, as an evolutionary branch which takes in humans.” Yes, but the crucial distinction between our models is the evolution of sex as the origin of the individual. GW asserts: “If it is only to accommodate an account of the champion which, pardon me for saying so” Indeed, you are pardoned given the tension between our models and your civility toward mine. “is weighted towards making the individual - a non-possible evolutionary unit” Yes, sex—hence the “individual”—is inherently dependent for reproduction on the joining of two individuals in what people in our degenerate lexicon, call “sex”. So let me rewind to your statement: “I guess there is an obvious utilitarian question which arises here.” Your “here” and my “here” are at least 600 million years apart, GW. What is the utility of sex? What happens to sex during the evolution of eusociality? What happens to sex, in its full glory manifest in the 600 Million Year Cambrian Explosion, that dwarfs in utility the mere “10,000 Year Explosion”, when sexual selection is sacrificed on the altar of eusociality’s gang warfare? More to the point: Why is it that urbanization is so strongly correlated with sexual perversion? To answer this pointed question we have to, again, rewind to your assertion about the essentially “social” nature of the individual which I will now embrace and extend to the point that your defense of “the group” makes you look like a coked-up Ayn Rand on 300ug of LSD: Sex is the creation of the ultimate civilization: The multicellular organism consisting of phenotypically specialized clone “dividuals” sharing the precisely the same genotype. Indeed, in their collective form as the “individual”, if they are prematurely “divided” from one another, their “individual genes” all die. Their joyous harmony in this creation—each of them sacrificing, in meosis, the immortality of their genome offered by mitosis—reverberates in the meaning to us of the glory of God willingly taking on mortal flesh to suffer and die. For what is this multi-faceted sacrifice? For Love that transcends the love of mere life—mere life in immortal clone societies. The individual organism is inherently “social” in at least 3, below-ordered, senses of the word: 1) As the expression of the eusociety of highly specialized and interdependent dividuals. All 3 of these senses of the “social” have enormous utility, manifest in The 600 Million Year Cambrian Explosion—and we haven’t even touched on “The Evolution of Eusociality”. But let us, so equipped with “utility”, return to the pointed… Question:
Answer:
NOW we have a new perspective on your “pointed question” implicit in your statement: “The alternative is to account for the champion without reifying a whole class of human assignment to non-reproductive behaviours in support of the reproductive fraction.” Let me now recast your casting of my position thus: “The alternative is to account for the champion without reifying a whole class of human assignment to non-reproductive behaviours in support of reproductive specialization.” In other words, one might—if one were sufficiently confused—turn my argument around to claim that sexual selection is inherently “eusocial” as defined by ethologists. Indeed, if one were even more confused, one might (with a bit of a sophistic stretch) claim that evolution itself is “eusocial” since whenever a mutation arises that crowds out the type, it is a form of “reproductive specialization” in which other types cooperatively sacrifice their very existence to the mutant type’s reproduction. OK, I can accept all that because I view evolution itself as a manifestation of an even higher identity that one might call “The Creator”, within which all existence finds ultimate utility. We owe our very existence to this higher identity’s utility. Have I now laid to rest the notion my approach is “individualist”, “Nietzschean” or, the even more slanderous, “Libertarian” in the senses rightly attacked by virtually everyone who attacks them? So let’s get back to the hominid group thence the evolution of human eusociality. GW asks: “Can we identify a productive evolutionary source for human eusociality by going back beyond the formation of the human tribe to the hominid troop?” Yes. The controversial paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” to which I repeatedly refer stopped at the point where its coauthor, E. O. Wilson, then proceeded to the hominid troop and human civilization in his essential book “The Social Conquest of Earth”. The controversy is driven by the same gale force psychophysiological winds as those that drove Dawkins to abandon anything resembling original thinking and start railing against “religion” as though he were stuck living in the mid 19th century and Boaspawn were nowhere in sight. It is somewhat tiresome to repeat this reference since it so foundational and no one seems to care enough about their own “creation story” to bother to read Wilson’s book. But let me say this about the “controversy”—which I have said before on numerous occasions: Eusociality is intra-specific parasitic castration. The evolution of eusociality is merely made more likely by genetic relatedness since a mother may easily parasitically castrate her children—causing them to fail to disperse at adolescence, rather to serve her reproductive interests. Question:
Answer:
The only question that should concern those of us serving our higher identity/utility by constructing culture:
The Reality of our situation is that evolutionary selection happens and our choices influence it via the only defensible definition of “culture”: artificial selection. The rest is commentary. In the above context perhaps my post “A Brief History of Euroman’s Identity With 600M Years of Sex vs Euroman’s Sexual Mutilation will make more sense. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2020 22:33 | # James, it’s not that you don’t “make sense” ... that your narrative, which has developed over many years, has no internal logic. You have a wonderfully creative and original mind which cranks out arguable cases like the rest of us make shopping lists. No, it’s that you do methodological violence to both scientific terminology and philosophical form by mixing hypotheses with propositions, by making sweeping assumptions along the way about individual trait histories, by getting your dates wrong, and then throwing in something called “The Creator”! It’s quite a list, but out of it you emerge with an argument with internal logic and emotional force. That I concede. However, sexual reproduction evolved 600,000 million years before the Cambrian explosion, which itself lasted 55 million years. Biologists do not know why the explosion in life-forms occurred. One theory is the Red Queen Hypothesis of sexually reproduced genetic variation as an out-runner of parasitic infestation. It is a good and neat theory, taking advantage of a reproductive modus in which variation is not wholly reliant on mutation. For sure, it has many proponents, but none would take it as proven fact. You are grounding a theory of human social organisation on one hypothesis about sexual reproduction as a successful if highly expensive means of introducing genetic variation; which means that it is, ultimately, a statement of faith, not fact. To my mind a more sober approach is required if one’s objective is to arrive at a general philosophy and not a religion. My objective is to arrive at a general philosophy. So I could never settle a loaded term like “gang” upon the phenomenon of ancient parasitic infestation and then jump forward 480 million years to the human present and connect it to the concept of the sociological function of the king’s champion or mortal combat. I have looked for origin, of course, but in the context of the essential struggle to be in a universe of cold mechanics, and the priorness which that struggle upholds. That argument I made philosophically, not scientistically, here: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/out_of_foundation_and_into_the_mind_body_problem_part_one That essay is intended to lead on to another applying the same fundamental struggle in an epistemological and identitarian context, which it is properly able to do because, quote, origin as a creative event ... is self-perpetuating and, thus, functions as the universal primal order of life, unquote. That order, which is an order of struggle against disintegration, manifests in everything, including matters of mind (via the movement I have termed the Ontological Transit). That order alone is the universal upon which supervene the untimely and dissonant histories you wish to connect. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:43 | #
You begin from the wrong place ... the wrong presumption for division as that word is used in, say, the phrase, “We are dividualised beings” ... to encompass my meaning. In the exact same sense you miss my meaning of “social” and, therefore, of “nature”. Over the years I have had many a discussion with highly intelligent people about their wild ability to engineer new meanings from old things yet never see the meaning of their own essential condition. It is, I think, harder for the most intellectually able to see that than it is for a man of only modest intellect, the former becoming more fatally inclined to abstraction with each additional SD. It may even be that the optimum IQ range for tumbling to that meaning is in the area of 110 to 125 (ie, within the range for reflective ability but before the ability to think in the abstract really takes hold and changes the balance of the perception). For the sake of clarity, what would it matter if your model of evolved humanity is right? What practical implication for the lived life would it have? You will perhaps respond to this question by constructing another model, this time a collective model, of masculine fitness and societal order. But then you will have characteristically stormed past the principal issue, and the meaning of the question, again. The principal issue is our individual and collective immersion in Time and Place, and the distance within us created thereby between what we are and what we become. Becoming in this regard does not matter because it all has the same value of, say, 1; which is the value of estrangement. Proper value, indeed proprietary value ... the value of, say, 2 ... is to be got from another way of being; but possession of that value resolves all philosophical questions anyway, for it is the value of truth in the lived life. As I have been trying to tell Daniel for years now, truth dictates (or should dictate) meaning, and does not require men, with their ideas and ambitions and faiths, to crowd in as mediators. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:08 | # Not having yet digested your response, I will not yet attempt to respond except for a technical clarification of the sense in which I use “sex” that justifies associating it, more or less, with the Cambrian Explosion: We have noun phrases like “unicellular life” and “multicellular life”, the adjectives for which are more or less technically accurate. The boundaries are not all that clearly delineated. Some boundaries make more sense than others depending on the purpose at hand. But there comes a point in evolution where there is a relatively stable platform for further evolution. I understand quite well that so-called “sex” is far older than a mere 600M years. But what happened around that time is the stabilization of the sexual platform for further evolution. This went beyond mere multicellular specialization, which can be seen quite early in the evolution of “sex”. It involved the development of nervous systems to the point that both male and female perception accelerated sexual selection—both intra and inter sexual selection. Until then, “sex” had been evolving. At that point, it was an accomplished fact. 27
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 02:39 | #
If you are going to bring me into it by saying something so stupid, as if I am the one who is hard of thought and philosophical wherewithal, be aware that I have not responded to your latest round of strawmen yet and will only do so at my leisure. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 12:21 | # You are I are in a gang of burglars, James. You and (to bring him into this) Daniel are instructing the rest of the motley band how to gain entry to the house by crow-barring a security door. I shimmied through a bathroom window long, long ago. Ever since, I have been trying to open the door from the inside. Ultimately, both methods are about truth in the lived life of our people. You see human truth as something to be penetrated to in the very earth beneath your feet, and so not new but old and once-upon-a-time instinctively and generally understood, and therefore to be instaurated in the general life. Daniel, on the other hand, sees truth as something corrective to be got by a form of bio-political interpretation and then communicated in the form of guidance to the masses. I see truth as something unconcealed in the individual mind in a certain state of freedom, and then expressed by those individuals in the collective life. We are all endeavouring to philosophise our way to a solution to the great question of how to live. But you tend to approach that from a distinctly scientistic direction (I say approach, but actually it’s more like running or perhaps parkour). Daniel approaches from a distinctly sociological direction, and I from a distinctly psychological direction. These approaches necessarily influence the methodologies in each case. Each has a weakness. Yours is over-attenuation. Daniel’s is obscurantism. Mine is esoterism. But, also, each makes quite a simple appeal. Yours is to a kind of revanchism of the masculine principle. I would say that Daniel’s is probably to our political activism. Mine is less to the consciousness of affinity, which is a given, than to the affinity of consciousness. The world that each produces could be as different from one another in character as a military campaign is from a political campaign, and both are from family life. To offer a more substantive comment, I see the philosophical place ... the ontological dependency ... of sex as distinct from that of elaborating cellular division as such, and therefore subsidiary to it and to everything that comes between elaborating division and sexual reproduction. In that linked article I’ve listed these ontologically (ie, not as an evolutionary time-line, although these should be consonant) as: “confine, therefore, and the reflex, impulsion and movement which elaboration entails; and in what, broadly speaking, Martin Heidegger called sorge (care or concern), Frank Salter called interest, and we might call the sole imperative of the will to continuity; and, thereby, in the qualities of ownership and instinct which imbue that will ...” Even if one wants to make the focus the Red Queen Hypothesis, still it only has philosophical relevance as an expression of care, whatever other implications it may hold for the generations of Man. 29
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:36 | #
I don’t want to be brought into the ineptitude of your arguments. Your strawmen are not welcome.
Note that you stress this word “interpretation” which I have rarely used. Rather I tend to focus on the fact that there are different units of analysis of truth. And I don’t recall ever having said that the truth is only some sort of corrective got by interpretation - and then - communicated. This kind of clunky strawman is the stuff of your half witted convenience. Nor am I nor my program guilty of “obscurantism.” But you seek to pin the rogue’s hyper relativizing weapons on me, don’t you? Just as you are keen to associate me with “interpretation”, you seek to associate me with “sociology” though that is not the particular discipline of my perspective… yet you know that like “post modernity” it is fraught with abuses against whites that you want to associate with me (as opposed to understanding what I actually say). Keep me out of this discussion. I don’t have regard for your “philosophical” discourse as it is not, in fact, rendered in honesty and truth, but aimed at “winning” whether you are truly equipped with the best argument and resource and deserving (or your “opponent”) or not. Again, for that reason, I have not yet addressed your latest round of strawmen and will only do so at my leisure. 30
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:24 | # GW characterizes my burglar’s tool-kit and aim: Ultimately, both methods are about truth in the lived life of our people. You see human truth as something to be penetrated to in the very earth beneath your feet, and so not new but old and once-upon-a-time instinctively and generally understood, and therefore to be instaurated in the general life. No. I’m attempting a different approach to your “psychology” approach. “Evolutionary psychology” has, of course, been dominated by Jews with the usual biases away from the insights essential to Euroman’s Being. When I use terms like “The Creator” and other, shall we say, imputation of human characteristics on “mechanistic processes” such as “evolution”, I am, to use your metaphor, going in through the bathroom window and then leaving via it to pick the lock on the front door. This may seem unprincipled to some, but that uncharitable portrayal elides the difficulty of understanding, let alone articulating, the essential barriers to recovering ownership of our own Home. Look into the eyes of your dog (if you have one) for The Lived Life as The Presence of The Past. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 05:44 | # James, animals, even domesticated ones, need no philosophy, no goals, no gods by which to live. But men do, and not because they are “domesticated”, their wild, original natures suppressed by social complexity. If you could travel back thirty thousand years into the European racial past, still you would find these singular products of Mind, because still you would find the gravitational power of declension and disintegration at work within that Mind, as an enworlded entity; and still men would bewail it and call it exile, fall, confusion, and seek their restoration to a half-remembered, half-imagined time before it took its dominion over them. We men cannot escape the consequences of our brain architecture, but within that fate are broad existential possibilities, and these are what we have to work with. These are the sum total of loss and restoration available to us. There is nothing else, no other field of action. Is it a restoration to this or that state of nature or anti-nature, determined by wise rulers and prophets? No, because it has its own authentic, self-levelling, world-making effect - what Daniel gestures towards when he speaks of homeostasis. If as part of its action it sweeps something away, some hindrance, and releases a primordial, defining Cambrian power, all well and good. You will be happy. But I don’t think it likely. Actually, I don’t think it possible. I think it immeasurably more likely that the words “I” and “we”, “mine” and “ours” will expand in the consciousness and order the future. 32
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:11 | # Daniel, the master of failed PhD discourse, speaks of ” homeostasis” does he? Here comes a true Radical on Homosexual Stasis and the West : Imagine someone of Prof Oliver’s academic rigour scoffing at your feeble efforts. http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2017/05/revilo-p-oliver-on-homosexuality.html 33
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:40 | # Yes, Al - Hitler loving asshole (and that’s the major reasonh why you doesn’t like DanielS) that you are - I have spoken of homeostasis, consistently - not merely pointing to it (as GW grudgingly concedes), but placing it as a central concern of Praxis. Why are you talking about “homosexual stasis”? and where did I ever tell people that they should not read revilo oliver? ..or that I am trying to compete with him? It’s interesting that whereas GW has been determined to depict me as an academic, whereas I was glad to have taken what I needed from the academic situation before bailing out of its insanely antagonistic institutional system in order to cultivate resources for our peoples interests unfettered; you, by contrast, are determined to depict this as my “failure”, as if I am broken-hearted to not have a PhD. I have related a favorite anecdote, one of my having spoken to a philosophy PhD student who said to me, that if one is going to pursue a philosophy PhD, they cannot be racist. I told him “that’s why I do not want a PhD.” Interestingly, that brought a smile to his face… a smile of truth and wisdom revealed. 34
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:46 | #
Al would probably try to say that was no mere typographical oversight but grammatical failure - lol. Yes, Al - Hitler loving asshole (and that’s the major reason why you don’t like DanielS) that you are - I have spoken of homeostasis, consistently - not merely pointing to it (as GW grudgingly concedes), but placing it as a central concern of Praxis. 35
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Oct 2020 22:45 | # GW: Imagine the difficulty of twins separated at birth, one brought up in a Gaelic-only household and the other in an English-only household, thrown together into a room. Each notices the near-mirror image the other presents. Then, as if this were not enough, there is that old shirt he himself had long-ago purchased and just happened to be wearing on this strange day: tartan patterned incongruously adorned with epaulets. Where to begin… How about here: Clearly there are less than desirable circumstances into which we are both thrown. Moreover, there are, we might well agree, desirable changes to those circumstances that some might mendaciously describe as “an attempt at turning back the clock” when, of course, it is impossible to do any such thing, time being what it is. Then imagine the consternation of having one’s Gaelic utterances misinterpreted as not only “an attempt at turning back the clock” but, oh, say, 30,000 years (if not 6 million, 600 million or even 1.5 billion years). This misinterpretation is to be expected—especially given the estranging circumstances. Now imagine if these metaphorical twins were expected to communicate only via clacking away at their respective Gaelic and English keyboards without so much as a voice inflection let alone facial expression. It is hard enough when scientists with rigorously standardized argots of their specialties attempt to bring their models and experiments into commensurability. I don’t want to do violence, even inadvertently, to your project. I have confidence you are at least onto something and that I may benefit from understanding it. But I do think this conversation should take place in a medium more suited to we estranged twins. 37
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 04:31 | # The Cambrian Explosion and the Origins of Embodied Cognition Michael Trestman Biological Theory volume 8, pages80–92(2013)Cite this article Abstract Around 540 million years ago there was a sudden, dramatic adaptive radiation known as the Cambrian Explosion. This event marked the origin of almost all of the phyla (major lineages characterized by fundamental body plans) of animals that would ever live on Earth, as well as the appearance of many notable features such as rigid skeletons and other hard parts, complex jointed appendages, eyes, and brains. This radical evolutionary event has been a major puzzle for evolutionary biologists since Darwin, and while our understanding of it has recently improved with new fossil finds, richer molecular phylogenies, and better grasp of ecological, evolutionary, and developmental processes generally, unanswered questions remain. In this article I argue that a basic cognitive toolkit for embodied, object-oriented, spatial cognition—what I call Basic Cognitive Embodiment—is a practical necessity for control of a large, mobile, complexly articulated body in space. This hypothesis allows us to relate the complexification of animal bodies to the complexification of perception, cognition, and behavior in a way that can help to fill in gaps in our emerging picture of the Cambrian Explosion, as well as shed light on the deep evolutionary origins of the mind. 38
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 04:58 | # I must admit that GW’s indictment of my position—that sexual selection and, in particular, male intrasexual selection, was central to the Cambrian Explosion and, indeed, speciation-as-we-know-it—is not a view widely shared by evolutionary biologists. However, they probably haven’t even seriously considered it since “sexual selection” suffers from our cultural bias in which females now utterly dominate sexual selection—intER sexual selection—by choosing which virtual sperm donors will populate the the planet’s future. So what few papers there are that attribute speciation to sexual selection focus on intER sexual selection. A quick search shows only one person out there, in a mere blog, even bothering to link up sexual selection as the primary driver of the Cambrian Explosion. GW’s further calling on me a technicality regarding the duration of the Cambrian Explosion (which I view as ongoing based on my view of its origin if not teleology) is correct. Such technical indictments of my credibility are, however, shielded from mere pedantry only by virtue of the fact that my artistic license may not be appreciated by those prone to critique my of lack scientific credentials and/or rigor. I would have hoped that I would be spared such critique in this particular culture. Hopefully, in the future, a more conversational mode may permit me to defend my attitude and approach. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 11:14 | # James, I think you are over-blowing what I have actually said, but no matter. Let’s look for common ground. Can we agree that (a) the highest calling of thinking men and women of European descent, at this perilous point in the life of our race, is to “construct” philosophically, in so much as philosophy is the well-spring for material change to the life of the people, and (b) the role of scientific truth in this (but not necessarily scientific theory) is to make philosophical thinking observant of the possible in Man? If we can agree those two things, then we can move forward. 40
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 01 Nov 2020 15:50 | # Yes. Of course. Moreover, (a) and (b), correspond to the two essential components of “Universal Intelligence” as rigorously unified by my colleague Marcus Hutter in AIXI: (a) “ought” (Sequential Decision Theory) and In our particular case, the “ought” necessarily focuses on the the value being lost to “us” with the catastrophic loss of “our” genetic quality (often confused with mere population loss) let alone the prospects for recovering it given the loss not only of exclusive territory within which we may repopulate, but the loss of our artificial selection regime—the culture that created that quality. The “is” must inform us of how the reality of this nightmare came about and do so with enough predictive power as to take remedial actions that are effective. One might object to such rigorous reduction to mere computation (algorithmic probability), but I think it appropriate to note that people are generally behaving as automatons precisely because their agency has been sucked dry by parasitic systems—indeed parasitic castration in the general sense that I use it to define the essential character of eusocial evolution. So, although Hutter’s designation of “Universal” may be a bridge too far for The Ontology Project’s metaphysics, it does at least offer contingent utility. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:24 | # OK, we can agree on the purpose and place of scientific truth. Now we can perhaps get to the nub of what separates us, which is, basically, how we derive the philosophical. For example ... I’m a fan of the grassland theory of the rapid co-evolution of intellectual and language functions in early hominids, to which I have gestured a couple of times at this site; the last thus:
Obviously, this theory does not interest me because it can explain the biology of humans but because it can explain the cost of the distortion to the perceptual function in the brain to accommodate the rapidly burgeoning ability to think. That distortion is actually a disconnecting of intellectual function from the other perceptual functions. These are the emotion, motor and perhaps sexual functions described here: It is the distortion which “men bewail and call exile, fall, confusion, and seek their restoration to a half-remembered, half-imagined time before it took its dominion over them.” It is important because it is the parent of all our errors, to quote from my reply to Daniel at 6 above, “of world-perception and self-identification” which give rise to our “self-estrangement and alienation”. One tragic result, to quote you at 18 above:
So now we have arrived at the ontological ground on which, in my layman’s opinion, forms all genuine philosophy ... all philosophy dedicated to answering the great question of how to live. In other words, were we human beings as the higher mammals are - sans any such distortion, and quicksilver alert by the natural connectedness of our perceptual functions - there would be no philosophy, no religion, no art, for doubt and darkness and mystery would not exist, and material answers to all questions of the perception would be ready-to-hand. So for me the great work of philosophising our way to live must come out of this ontological ground. It cannot come out of the grassland theory because that, being an evolutionary and scientific theory, is only descriptive, and does not shape thought to “the great work” prescriptively, imparting to it the holistic, vivifying, forward-reaching relevance which philosophical thought uniquely possesses (or has the unique potential to possess). Yes, along the way that thought must accord with what we know from science, because what we know from science is one of our principal standards for truth. But we cannot abstract philosophy from that knowledge. That is to say, it can be congruent with (not contingent on) philosophy but it can’t have the utility of philosophy itself. Scientific hypothesis and empiricism is really only analysis of a final kind, not so very unlike the analysis which WN has famously conducted on the questions of race and nature over the last several decades. It leads back to itself. So from this position it becomes necessary to ask of you what, if anything, is philosophical in character and purport in your own undoubtedly formidable thinking? Given that bare rules and lessons cannot be abstracted from scientific determinants and carried into the lived life of the people, how does your thinking tie in to the ontological foundation and mould itself to a philosophical answer to the great question? 42
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Mar 2021 21:20 | # Civilization’s dissolution of the masculine is a regression to the precambrian more-feminine life pattern. The appearance of multicellular predators thence male intrasexual selection—mano-a-mano—did more than merely select for skeletal remains that give the appearance of an explosion in the fossil record. Male intrasexual selection created boundaries within which speciation could occur more rapidly Thence, The Cambrian Explosion of life forms. Throughout evolutionary history, the more successful attempts to extend mano-a-mano violence to group violence have ended in females parasitically castrating their offspring to produce sterile workers as extended body parts—eusocial species: Ants, termites, bees and naked mole rats that engage in perpetual war. Civilized man is clearly heading in that direction and is doing so at the expense of the most individualistic races. 43
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:06 | # My closer reading of your levellers essay brings to mind an echo in the aftermath of the US war for independence: Shays’s Rebellion and, later, the Whiskey Rebellion—both of which were quelled by Hamilton’s puppet, Washington, and resulted in the Constitutional Convention that centralized power in Washington DC. That this then produced New England Puritan elite, resonant with Cromwell, is the result one expects when resistance is too inchoate to recognize the choice of franchise is not limited to either landed elites or universal suffrage, but needs to recognize that force is the origin of sovereignty and that force resides in the able bodied men called upon to place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization—largely the able bodied men of the Yeomanry. That the indoctrination of and power behind Hamilton was largely Jewish is also in line with Cromwell. That’s why I say it is the “soldiers”, more accurately “the militia” (regardless of land holdings or other wealth) that should be the recipients of economic rents—thence to be distributed as social goods to their localities as they see fit—starting with their own ability to outbid “the economy” for the fertile years of young women. The closest thing to a conception of “economic rent” available to the Levellers was land rent. Did they, in any manifesto or during their short-lived parliament, ever suggest distributing land rents equally to Englishmen from which the New Model Army drew its force? An aphorism I came up with to explain to people the critical distinction between taxing income and taxing wealth involves that Norman notion of the Domesday Book: “If engineers treated velocity and position the way economic economic policy think tanks treat income and wealth, the industrial revolution might never have created the cushy environment that has permitted economic policy to decay to a state more primitive than the Domesday Book.” The Normans clearly had in mind the idea of economic rents in a wealth tax of sorts but, of course, the proceeds of such a tax were not to be distributed equally to all able bodied men called upon to enforce the law and land—of whatever rank or wealth. I do not know but suspect a Jewish hand in the Norman invasion of England. 44
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Sep 2021 03:15 | # The US War of Independence had , as its raison d’etre , the economic interests of the business class . Does anyone imagine that ” Representation” took precedence in the asymmetrical concerns of tea merchants over “Taxation” ? As is usual with the Tribe , they followed the Normans across the Channel but any evidence of the Chosenites’ financing the invasion seems to be lacking , unlike the Cromwellian victory which was , as we all know , funded by the Dutch - based, Portuguese Jew , Carvalho. To dilate upon the theme , that great literary figure , Sir Walter Scott , took a break from writing best - selling fiction to author a multi - volume History of the French Revolution , in which he identified Jewish agents provocateurs as the catalysts for Gentile - slaughtering success. Difficult to find that book now , despite the fact that no writer anywhere has been honoured with a monument equal to that of Edinburgh’s ‘Scott Monument’ . 45
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Sep 2021 03:57 | # The Jewish ” indoctrination of Hamilton” seems unlikely at least in his early years, . Hamilton attended the University of St Andrews , in his day a Christian institution with the customary, sensible proscriptions against employing members of the Tribe.
46
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 13 Jan 2022 19:41 | # Below is a brief history of “Cavaliers and Roundheads—The American Legacy of the English Civil War”. I came across this while doing a new production of one of my most important youtube videos, “The Great Leveler and The Cycle of Civilization”. I happened upon this web page about Cavaliers because I was searching for a particular aspect of American history that involved the capture of the Scots-Irish by the Cavaliers via various forms of Hell Fire and Brimestone JudeoChristianity preachers that were the product of the American Cavaliers—particularly in the South. This capture exemplifies my assertion that:
I’ve not found the historic accounts yet that support my attribution to Cavaliers this role of priests to the backbone of the military in the US (the Scots-Irish), but I know it to be true from my Scots-Irish heritage. I also know that one of the worse enemies of The American People has been these “preachers” whose “fruits” by which we “may know them” has been to fail the young men of their congregations and then turn around and blame the young men for “turning away from God”. By “worst enemies” I mean the kind of enemy one views as a traitorous officer in an existential conflict. That motivation said, here’s the article:
47
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Jan 2022 22:16 | # Perhaps I should be thankful for calling my attention to this post where GW, in comment 14, issued forth five of the last in his endless (idiotic) strawmen - these were strawman clumps of shit. As I no longer have to put up with him, I am no longer provoked with disgust, but rather happy to leave behind anybody who would buy that bullshit. It’s really too bad that he wasn’t able to get over his jealous competitiveness with (what he wanted to construe for the sake of his autobiography) academic pretense in order, rather, to see the important difference between what I was/am saying, what the academics he’s reacting to are saying and what he wants to believe for the sake of his autobiography; but he could not and could only resort to strawmen, however wrong and stupid. Anyone who wants to buy the entirely dishonest shit he’s said there, be my guest, you are a fool. 48
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 03:24 | # I’ve published the higher-production-quality version of The Great Leveler and The Cycle of Civilization. My response to the first comment on that video refers back here with a couple of links to MR. We’ll see if that gets my video “cancelled”, but the commenter rather forced my hand. This kind of thing happens all-too-often on the social media network monopoly platforms: some reckless pseudonymous person drops a turd thinking they are “punching to the left”, demanding someone who _isn’t_ pseudonymous place themselves at risk of being cancelled. Children… 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:15 | # In response to James @ 48: Let’s begin with the fundamental in all organic life more complex than a simple cell, which is the transmission of the genotype, as the existent crucible of life itself, unto the morrow. From there we can step onward via the formation of the sexes and thence to mammalian life, with its imbalance in commodity value between the paucity of mammalian female eggs and the millions upon millions of male sperm. That alone condemns males to more hazardously competitive selection strategies. Accordingly, power is prioritised and we find the reconciling selection regime of male power <> female beauty. Male power is commonly expressed as status. Accordingly, property figures even among quite disparate mammalian clades, and even among some fish species. All that follows in James’s analysis comes out of the male claim on status and, specifically, the over-reach of those with status to monopolise same and/or obliterate competition by developing the tactics of: a) elitism and supremacism b) rent-seeking and parasitism ... and to preserve same by means of: c) the “champion” and men at arms “Men at arms” brings us to the video. There is one unasked question, though, to which an answer might help with the onward journey: Given its primordiality and the desirability of its competitive prize, how can power be addressed within the group other than by what, in Africa, is known as Big Man Syndrome, and in Europe is known as aristocracy? Is “the cycle of civilisation” (ie, the winning of power and resources > the monopolisation of power and resources > the levelling of the powerful > the winning of power ...) the only possible human story, or is there a way out? 50
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 15:48 | # GW writes: “Accordingly, property figures even among quite disparate mammalian clades, and even among some fish species.” I use the phrase “property rights” as distinct from what some would call “natural rights” (what you would apparently simply call “property”) to designate those properties of a person that would not obtain without a “meeting of the minds” necessary for contractual obligation. Extending this to the notion of “culture” at the level of “society”, this “meeting of the minds” extends across an ethny to form its “artificial selection regime” that is the sine qua non of “culture”. But regardless of scale, be it a million people or merely two people, crossing the threshold of a “meeting of the minds” crosses into the “artificial society” in my lexicon. Note, I’m not necessarily saying that what is “artificial” is not “natural”. Let’s not get into that semantic quagmire unless absolutely necessary. (I am profoundly suspicious of those who claim what is “artificial” is “natural” for what I think is an obvious reason: Justification of the status quo “good” because it is “natural” and there is just nothing to be done about it, you see.) Moreover, I’m quite aware that one can stretch a “meeting of the minds” to for example, baboon troops where a group of males may form a loose coalition to gang up on the alpha to depose him after a sufficient period of his dominance, or even pack hunting animals such as wolves where the group organism forms to obtain food. But this “meeting of the minds” is, like the pre-Cambrian “sex”, only in nascent form that in Man obtains a new level of evolution resulting in the Anthropocene Explosion just as did individual male intrasexual selection (what you might call “the champion”) obtained a new level of evolution resulting in the Cambrian Explosion. In the primate line, this development of a “meeting of the minds” toward “the artificial society” corresponds almost exactly with neuron count of the species. I belabor this so that we can talk about what might be thought of as “title” to a property (what I call a “property right”) as distinct from, say, a bird’s nest that the bird will defend against invaders. Likewise, a “homestead” is a “property” that, under, shall we say, non-artificial conditions, can be defended by the man, alone, because it is not going to be attacked by a group of men having come to a “meeting of the minds” to form what my video calls a “roving gang”. As for the “African Big Man”, why is that not addressed by my decade-old MR post of “The Tale of Lin Tse” where a big lumberjack is taken down by a small Chinese man he has been bullying? 51
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:34 | #
I know, but rights are not contingent on “a meeting of minds” but on the will of the powerful. Only to the extent that the abstraction of “the meeting of minds” is imbued with Nature’s will can the will of the powerful be beaten back. That is so because Nature, not culture, is the ultimate source of our discrimination for universal value. Likewise, culture as “an artificial selection regime” also fails the naturalistic challenge. It is possible, as we know only too well, to construct a culture in which white people are dehumanised all day for supposed sins against other races. But we do know it’s a criminal racket, and all but the very weakest and most suggestible of us treat it (at least privately) with contempt. For the weedy white liberal, a babe-magnet BLM ain’t.
Because brains do not, in fact, defeat brawn in hand-to-hand combat, which is really only a bad idea for the l’il brainy guy. Especially if he is, oh I don’t know, a college professor no longer in the prime of life. Good for 300 lb doormen not called Langan, though. You have such a specific notion of culture, James, and so different is it from my reading of the enworlded man, we might need another few threads to dig a navigable channel between the two. 52
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:20 | # GW, I’m getting the sense that you aren’t bothering to read the most important post I’ve made here on MR. If there is going to be a navigable channel between us, then you’re going to have to accord me the courtesy of reading “The Tale of Lin Tse” with more care. For example, to characterize a mutual hunt in nature as hand-to-hand combat is so silly that I can’t believe you have bothered to make the most casual investment in comprehending that post. I’d say about half of that “Tale” was specifically about the distinctions between a mutual hunt in nature and “hand-to-hand combat” as defined by everyone except, apparently, you. To conflate that misreading with your more generous critique involving “a college professor no longer in the prime of life” does not lend the former characterization any greater generosity. It would have been nice if I’d been permitted to address that more generous critique, but we’re now we’re stuck in what strikes me as an attempt to render the discourse a non-starter. And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not take the analytic tool of “mutual hunt in nature” as anything but precisely that: An analytic tool to expose the essentials of our dilemma—as a kind of way of hacking into our firmware to get at issues regarding masculinity and its relationship to the evolutionary consequences of our cultural choices regarding dispute processing modes . It appears your reading comprehension is severely impaired by the emotional eruptions elicited. 53
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:11 | # I can certainly agree that “Nature, not culture, is the ultimate source of our discrimination for universal value.” When I talk about things like the deep history of evolution involving the Cambrian Explosion as prelude to The Anthropocene Explosion, I’m permitting my perception of what I believe you are calling “Nature’s will” to inform my cultural choices so that they align The Anthropocene Explosion with “universal value” as embodied in the long-range direction manifest in evolution and then “discriminate” my own personal values into those that align with “Nature’s will” and those that do not so align. This is the telos/task of Man as The Moral Animal, is it not? 54
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 14 Jan 2022 23:56 | # I’m not sure who’s “smarter”, James or DanielS? LOL 55
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 00:41 | # Thorn wants to play games. OK, Thorn: To the discriminating rock, I’m sure there is little difference. Now go play with yourself and leave the adults alone. 56
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 00:54 | # You are not an adult, James. You are a mental case. 57
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 01:54 | # Puberty blockers at google trends shows its emergence as a “push” over the last decade as indicating the enemy is highly focused on the masculinity issue even if we are not. 58
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 02:55 | # Thorn’s professional and measured assessment of James Bowery’s contributions are very valuable to those who believe that old Jesus was sired by one of His fellow Trifecta deities. 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 19:26 | # James, I understand that you are building an evidential case for a critique of masculinity in modern Man, and that the comparison to be made is with some model of the masculine principle assigned to an unspecified but very distant time. In this thread I have made a couple of perhaps not very insightful attempts to connect with that case. But I am confused about what it is you are asking from modern Man or from his polity. You say it is not a Nietzschean regression to a prior state of masculine command, or any overt form of honour society. OK, but what’s left? Of course, I have my own answer to the grand existential question. As I believe myself to be a Heideggerian I am bound to conclude that our troubles arise in the inauthenticity of our ordinary state of being in the world. That inauthenticity might be a product of the time and place in which we are born, or it might, as you say, be some fatal incompleteness from our deep evolutionary past. The difference is that we can do something about the first, and that’s what I try to talk about. If it’s the second then I and all the rest of us are wasting our time. No turn to our own truth is going to effect the deep philosophical and religious change we need to survive as a race. But, then, nor will any amount of masculine-coloured woad smeared on our social person. I need you to tell us what it is you think is possible in terms of a redress to masculinity, and what you want to see by way of a socio-political outcome. 61
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 20:09 | # The truth is there isn’t a masculinity problem amongst white men. JB brings up puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are prescribed to youth who suffer from gender dysphoria / transgenderism. What is the percentage of males who identify as transgender? According to the Center for Disease Control about 0.4% (four-tenths of one percent). Hardly a crisis of masculinity, IMO. But then again if you subject yourself to corporate advertising and the trash the Hollywood produces, you might get the impression there is a masculinity crisis. But that is not the real world. 62
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 04:07 | # GW: I could spend my life trying to convince people to understand that conveniently noisified pigeon holes like “Nietzschean” are specious, just like anyone with an ounce of familiarity with reality is supposed to spend their lives defending themselves against being pigeon holed as “racists” or some other vague but stigmatizing connotation play. A present example: I might agree with the 19th century philosopher about the “anti-Christ” nature of our resident “Testosterone* isn’t a problem with white men except to degenerate ignoramuses—now fetch the Vaseline. That’s a good little altar boy.” representative of Turntheothercheekdom. And I might even agree that Man is in the midst of a transition to an estate that, like the “release of Sex 1.0” triggered The Cambrian Explosion, is leading us to what I’m calling “The Anthropocene Explosion” through the “release of Man 1.0”, but you should know that it is really easy to get things wrong in important ways that are obvious only in retrospect. Most obviously in the later regard, we have “transhumanism” that is being labeled “Nietzschean” by many. What would Nietzsche think of “transhumanists”? Who knows? More importantly, WHO CARES??? If it isn’t obvious that whatever understanding Nietzsche had in the 19th century, and however he might have been analogous to Darwin in the way his line of thinking was set back by the open sewer main known as “The 20th Century”, the intellectually honest among us have not been as hampered by that century-long cesspool in enjoying the advances in understanding as we were supposed to have been. *A brief search of MR for the keyword “testosterone” shows a long history of discussions that rarely if ever directly reference one of the strongest pieces of evidence for population-level decreases in testosterone with time that is not readily explicable. Since our resident anti-Christ has, whether due to stupidity or mendacity or both (most likely) exhibited poor reading-comprehension by interpreting my statement about puberty-blockers as my argument that there is a problem with masculinity among white men, rather than what I said, which is that it is evidence that the enemy is increasingly focused on attacking masculinity, and, in the mendacious stupidity so typical of our resident anti-Christ, concluded that there is no problem with masculinity among white men, I figured it not entirely a waste of time to take the bait and post the direct reference: A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men
63
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 17:47 | #
“ Meh! The age group was too old, and the numbers are too small to base any solid conclusions on.
64
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 18:15 | # It is possible that oestrogen urinated into the water, or some other perhaps more chemically-complex factor, is depressing testosterone production among men in more urban areas like Boston. In rural areas where water is supplied from aquifers and non-sewage carrying sources that should be a much reduced possibility, so a control group could be found. On the “Nietzschean”, as a moral order it abides in the same elitist line as Judaism, Chivalry, the honour society, militarism, and the Schmittian decision. From that last it should be clear that its immediate ideological children are the fascisms and all the lesser ideologies of the masculine spirit. By its prescriptive nature and dedication to mastery it is more distantly related, but related all the same, to religious asceticism and Stoicism. Taken together, these are the “go to” intellections of, let us say, the philosophical Gilgamesh who seizes hold of his unkempt, expressive natural self and pins him down, proclaiming the eternal victory over him while actually only enjoying a momentary ascendancy. Perhaps we might connect this to the scientistic mastery of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. I see no harm in it. But as you, James, recoil from such an association, then surely the question has to be asked how else you would characterise Post-Human Man, as well as the other two questions I asked @ 60 and which remain unanswered. 65
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 18:42 | # Our resident anti-Christ once again exhibits only militant ignorance, even if feigned, of the literature in his mendaciously stupid attempt to minimize the realities facing our young men, thence, our people’s loss of both population and territory. The cited 2007 paper has, itself, been cited nearly 400 times in the scientific literature and there is more than enough coverage of in the popular press to make it obvious to the most casually interested person that the effects are real and across age groups. Perhaps this anti-Christ is, by exemplifying why Christian ministries are losing young men by the droves, providing a vaccine against the attempts to seduce them into the protective arms of “Mother Church”. If so, I just hope no one figures out he’s my sock-puppet. 66
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 19:07 | # GW: Don’t go down our resident anti-Christ’s path in hopes of averting your eyes from the painful realities facing our young men thence the loss of territory and population. There are many possible explanations offered in the scientific literature but one thing overrides all the speculations: We don’t know. In the absence of knowledge of what is going on, other than that we are losing territory and population, thence anything that might be regarded as of value, it is entirely reasonable for young men to want to bind together and take exclusive control of enough territory to raise families without outside interference. Indeed, it is only humane to not only permit them to do so, but to support them, at least morally if not materially, in doing so. Thence Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them. You seem to have a problem with that approach to providing them the moral support they need to find the morale to engage in rational risk management in the face of increasingly alien chaotic “thrownness”. Now, you may have missed something obvious in this admonition: I didn’t talk about “mutual hunt in nature” nor did I talk about what you characterize as a “Nietzschean moral order” unless you would characterize the Levelers as such a moral order. It does, however, necessarily entail dealing with the masculine issue, including emasculation since, at least, the boundaries of the territory must be guarded by those of masculine temperament even if Sortocracy is adopted and thereby replaces prisons with exile. 67
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 19:11 | #
That is a very likely explanation, GW. I can recall reading an article about researchers finding traces of drugs in the chinook salmon tissue caught in the Puget Sound—drugs such as Prozac, Lipitor, Advil etc. They attributed the cause to people flushing those drugs down their toilets which ended up in the Salmon’s aquatic enviornment. 68
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 20:27 | # @65 Jim, you argue like a little bitch. I suggest you rush to the nearest endocrinologist and have your estrogen checked. I bet your levels are through the roof. ”...realities facing our young men, thence, our people’s loss of both population and territory.” Today a good segment of childbearing women are choosing to delay having kids until their 30s. Furthermore, a large segment of career women are choosing not to have kids at all. But the biggest factor is the advent of pharmaceutical birth control; that and outright abortion. That’s why TFR is much lower than the replacement level. Young white dudes are bursting with testosterone and are as horny as their forefathers. Young women are putting-out with reckless abandon. Why the paucity of offspring? Again, lifestyle choices combined with modern birth control options is the proximate cause of the population collapse in white countries. OUR ruling-elites’ decision to replace the deficit population growth with the importation of foreign populations to make up the difference is what’s causing our people’s loss of territory. 69
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 21:11 | # Common Chemicals May Lower Testosterone Levels, Study Finds Exposure to certain chemicals commonly found in plastics and other products is associated with lower levels of testosterone in men, women and children, a new study says. Testosterone is the main sex hormone in men, but it is also involved in a variety of functions in both men and women, including brain function, bone density, physical growth, strength and heart health. The University of Michigan researchers studied exposure to chemicals called phthalates and testosterone levels in more than 2,200 people who took part in the 2011-12 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Phthalates are found in flexible PVC plastics and many personal care products, according to the study published online Aug. 14 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. [...] https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20140814/common-chemicals-may-lower-testosterone-levels-study-finds 70
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 21:45 | # As luck would have it, today, Scott Adams put a query out for evidence of what people like our anti-Christ are about, assuming they are paid operatives. Now I’m not saying the anti-Christ here is a paid operative, but it clearly is a troll with more than the usual amount of time on its hands than a typical human being that must meet the mortgage payments. Adams has the kind of connections that may result in some insights, if not industrial troll expert testimony. It will be interesting to see what he reports. 71
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:16 | # @70 LOL Not quite. Not even close. Actually, you bore the sh-t out of me. But since we’re at it: Look up the term overcompensation as it relates to a psychological defense mechanism. It describes your (I’m the smartest guy in the room) persona to a tee. 72
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:25 | # Leave it to Israelis to give a shit about their territory, thence the masculinity of their defense forces, thence that of their young men, thence tends in their testosterone levels.
73
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:42 | # The psycho-social economy of trolls is also interesting to consider as a late-stage in the cycle of civilization’s centralization of positive network externalities. The “trickledown” effects of degenerate authorities’ control over distribution of financial power, via the fiat monetary system and tax regime protecting centralized power, will naturally create degenerate operatives that identify with that structure and have lots of resources, hence time on their hands. They needn’t be hired—they just need to be cultured by the artificial selection regime. 74
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 00:43 | # @ 73 Nice backdrop to your vid James. Did Marshalle Applewhite designed it for you? lol 75
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 Jan 2022 01:32 | #
I characterise the Levellers as proto- or instinctual nationalists and, in cases such as Freeborn John, Anglo-Saxon nativists. For me, their essentialism is what characterises them. I am sure they were also men by any measure. Certainly, Rainsborough died with a sword in his hand, fighting Royalist kidnappers (or, more likely assassins) who had burst into his bed chamber at Pontefract Castle. As regards moral orders impinging upon the masculine principle, I have stated what I believe them to consist in and what philosophical family they belong to; and already accepted some considerable time ago that your thesis does not refer to them. I am trying to establish what it does refer to but in theoretical terms that I can relate to the political. That is what my questions are about. Surely, it is clear that analysis alone, and certainly analysis commencing with an event from so many millions of years ago, cannot move feeble men to great things. 76
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:54 | # In terms of that which can “move” aka motivate in relation to what is present vs that which is past, there is always the presence of the past, which I’ve previously mentioned with regard to domestication of wolves and my particular conjecture as to their relevance to the present crisis. But let’s set that aside, since that didn’t seem to help us tunnel through to each other and, instead, look at Glucocorticoids, the evolution of the stress-response, and the primate predicament, if I may be forgiven for citing a Jew that exhibits some of the typical highly virulent biases, which I will attempt to discard as dross, leaving some workable material:
Now what Sapolsky’s worst devils want to do with this is proclaim that all human potential among the usual “protected groups” is so damaged by modern activation of this hormonal axis that we remain in the economic regime of social engineering out-of-existence inequality between human racial groups. I get it. Nasty if very tiresome stuff, that after grinding our people into an existential crisis over at least the last half-century. Damn him. However, Sapolsky’s argument is a two-edged sword. While his social-signaling would like to ignore the 100k/year deaths of despair in the US alone among white heterosexual men as the mere tip of the iceberg (in a manner reminiscent of our resident anti-Christ’s ignoring the trendiness of puberty blockers as the tip-of-the-elite’s-iceberg-of-intent)—the rest of us are not required by Sapolsky’s research to fall in line. We may swing the sword in the opposing direction. Why not? Is it because the adrenocortical stress-response, while it may be damaging our young men, and while it may be strongly linked to that which can “move feeble men”, it is all-too-likely that it will move them to other than “great things” and that, for this reason, we must address more recent evolutionary systems for higher motives? 77
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:39 | # In terms of my focus on masculinity and my aphorism “Honor is moral territory.”: Patriline is most-important to groups that most-rely on male provisioning for the obvious reason that the father’s moral authority is critical for transmission of cultural norms—norms that mean survival. As civilization displaces male provisioning with collective provisioning, matriline becomes more viable and, because of the greater reliance on gathering for calories among our African ancestors, more attractive—to Big Men of civilization since they can monopolize the fertile years of young women as office ornaments if not as concubines—until the civilization collapses. Note that the African Big Man is embodied in the European Big Man who may be a pipsqueak, rendered “Big” only because he can manipulate others into quasi-extensions of his body (ie: Lawyers/Media/Academia/Politicians/Preachers/Gurus/etc.) I’ve described this for 3 decades now. No one seems to really “get it” in terms of how important it is relative to what is sometimes called “The Single Jewish Cause” which I have always placed at a second-order effect to “Race, Gender and The Frontier”. Really, if people want to take baby-steps to get up to speed on my focus on masculinity and they can’t handle my more advanced concepts they can start following me with that 1992 essay. 78
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 00:20 | #
I’m certain that every dog that takes up with another and heads off to the nearest field with sheep in mind has read some Heidegger. Maybe not the whole book but enough to know that dog-Dasein ineluctably reifies the authentic inner wolf. As to what the authentic inner Man may be, well, until we try we cannot know; and if we try to specify it in advance we will only succeed in engendering another falsehood.
I don’t believe there is any point in trying to engender some moral purpose in men if it is not their own purpose and does not follow from their sovereign authenticity. Milgram hangs heavily over the question of Man’s suggestibility. One can get men, or some or enough of them, to do anything. What counts is not that ... not their suggestibility ... but their fidelity to the truth of themselves and to that truth they likewise find in their brothers. 79
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 03:46 | # You didn’t earn my respect by that snarky response to something I asked be set aside in favor of something you didn’t then address even in passing respect for my efforts to present the issue of motivation as relevant to your concern with “move"ment. You could have at least have shown that much kindness to a “brother” however misguided. Why did you do that? “Tough love”? 80
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 04:09 | # GW writes somewhat more to the point: “One can get men, or some or enough of them, to do anything. What counts is not that ... not their suggestibility ... but their fidelity to the truth of themselves and to that truth they likewise find in their brothers.” I suppose to the extent that one’s inner state can be decoupled from what one does one’s “fidelity to the truth of themselves and to that truth they likewise find in their brothers” can remain intact since this at least seems to be a entirely internal relation. Is that internal relation adequate to retain “sovereign authenticity”? Here’s a dilemma that seems to arise: The Prisoner’s Dilemma (shades of Milgram): One is suggestible and the suggestion is successfully made to defect against one’s brothers. They all die. One lives. This is not a perverse, inauthentic “gotcha” dilemma. It is as authentic as it gets as dilemmas go. Where is one’s authentic sovereignty in relation to one’s brothers? 81
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 19:13 | # James, Ethically, Salter resolved The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Philosophically, one might say that liberalism creates The Prisoner’s Dilemma, nationalism resolves it. Not sure why you find my first para @ 78 “snarky”. Certainly, nothing of the sort was intended. You spoke of the past in the present, and the domesticated wolf, with its common reversion when in pack-formation to sheep-worrying, is a mete example. I then contrasted that act, which is nothing if not a pure expression of biology, with the problem of replicating such a combination of purity and presence in human males. Why? Because our object here, is it not, is to connect your STEM focus with my Heideggerian reading, a non-trivial condition of which is that one cannot prescribe what the replication should look like. It must be of itself or it is something else entirely: https://www.lefigaro.fr/le-massacre-d-oradour-sur-glane-en-4-cartes-20200825 You may say, well, what does that matter providing the end result is advantageous. But are we engaged only upon a utilitarian process, or are we engaged in a quest for the truth of what Man is? It must be the latter, surely? Like Heidegger at Freiburg: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_road_to_revolution_part_three ... we cannot vault “the empirical gap”, only limn its edges in the company of the authentic man. 83
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 Jan 2022 22:28 | # This, too, seems quite a simple ethical challenge for a Salterian. Setting aside the stultifyingly boring and self-proving argument for fairness as equity, “fairness” as justice requires a general acknowledgement of a life-cause that outweighs all others. Many years ago, before MR existed, I used to explain human action to right-liberals in a non-Misean manner by means of the burning house dilemma, thus: You come home from work one evening to find your house well-and-truly on fire and your wife beside herself with terror outside. Your child and your child’s friend are still in the house, trapped somewhere upstairs. The fire brigade has been called but help is still several minutes away. There is only one course of action available, so you burst through the front door and dive into the flames screaming your child’s name. The smoke is choking. The roof timbers are starting to collapse, raining down red-hot tiles. Time is desperately short. You hear a call. You follow it and find your child’s friend cowering alone in a landing cupboard. Everything around you is alight: the floor, the furnishings, the walls. The child will not budge for terror. Then, before you can even begin to organise your thoughts, you hear another cry from a room even deeper in the burning building. You will have to jump over a holed and burning area of floor to get to it. You don’t know if it is strong enough to take your weight. But if it does, you won’t be able to return this way with your own child to save the friend. The only way out for you and your child will be from an upstairs window. So, do you save the friend, which is certainly possible, or commit to saving your own child, which may not be? Which child will you commit to save, and which will you commit to the flames? The Salterian knows, as does every parent (but, admittedly, not every right-liberal who affects to be so terribly rational). So the question mutates into one not about fairness, because that is settled by genetic interest, but about ringing the fire alarm. How do we do that ... how do we introduce reality and urgency to a world of comfort and illusion, when the very idea of fire seems a million miles away? 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 Jan 2022 22:52 | # Of course, James, you may wish to construct an argument to the effect that the man in the story is not actually man enough to take such action. But I would counter that even if masculinity is a fluid commodity, the genetic and emotional investment is the same. The thing that is really different, and for which we really have to find the solution (indeed, the only thing for which we can really find a solution), is the zeitgeist. 85
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 02:07 | # One of the main reasons for my first article posted on MR was to strengthen the argument for Hamilton’s rule, thence Salterian analysis of ethnic genetic interest. I did have adequate understanding of Salter since as has been posted here in response to that article:
If I were, after nearly 15 years, to expand on that article, it would be in two ways (both more or less consistent with The Genetic Omnidominance Hypothesis in its treatment of entire ecosystems as expression of both mutualism and virulence depending primarily on the ratio of vertical to horizontal transmission of replicators): 1) The correlation structures that Lewontin, in his apocalyptic mendacity, elided are best discovered with a “may the best win”/“fair fight”—a competition to model human population genetics decided on the basis of Algorithmic Information: The size of the smallest executable archive of the available genetic databases among humans. Now, lest I lose you to the “fight” over what constitutes a “fair contest” when our existential crisis is caused by a lack of cooperation, and thereby condemn you to lose track of the point of this: Advancing the theory of inclusive fitness (of which Salter’s EGI is a mathematical consequence)—even if it is a _significant_ advance that enhances the power of Salterism (which I think it does by quite a lot) it still leaves us with the task of “ringing the fire alarm” despite the alarm bell now being much bigger and more powerful, with greater discriminatory power over authentic altruism (what I would call “mutualistic altruism” in the present context) and virulent altriusm (that resulting from a spectrum of parasitic castration). Note that extended phenotypics can be mutualistic and/or virulent. Rhetorically asking, what is it that permits us to “ring the alarm bell”? Clearly, finding the right combination of words will help and I believe you are attempting to do that. The conceptual framework painted by those words of yours must, of course, reach men in their “authentic truth”, whatever it is, else it is—to them—merely a false alarm if not a failed alarm. When you bring up the decision of the hero entering the burning building, and apply Salter, you need to do more than that in order to reach him in “his authentic truth” according to Salter—at least the way I recall Harpending’s math: You must imbue our hero with an ecological context in which the genetic relatedness to both children is rendered more equivalent by the presence, in that ecological context, of competing ethnic genetic interests—the more genetic distance to those interests and the smaller the geographic (ecological) distance, the greater role the EGI plays in our hero’s decision. So have I made it clear what I think about Salterism? If I’m not too far off the mark, may I now proceed to discuss what I mean by the tweet that KMac liked and perhaps why that author of “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition” liked it? Recall what I said:
What could it possibly mean for a people to “instinctively value a fair fight” vs a people to “instinctively value gang membership”? Here’s a possibility: The “fair fight” bias is a consequence of not being highly adapted to group conflict and the “gang membership” bias is a consequence of being highly adapted to group conflict. In other words, when a “fair fight” people are thrown by Heidegger into a world of group conflict, they lose. Right? I mean you can go ahead and cajole and admonish them about their need to recognize their EGI until you’re blue in the face—you can speak with the tongues of men and of angels—you can love them with all your heart—you can write a tome 10 times the volume of Being and Time or distill Being and Time down to a laconic and highly appealing tweet, but you aren’t going to be speaking to their “instincts”—their “alarm bell” residing in the deep evolutionary recesses except to raise their awareness that they have just as much right to exist as any other ethny and that includes ethnies that don’t really care about a “fair fight” except in circumstances extraordinary in the modern world’s habit of “throwing” us all together with 747s. You’ve got to up your game regarding what the British notion of “fair play” means at an instinctive level and how to work with that rather than against it because you are impatient to get to the unifying argument about EGI. 86
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 04:57 | # What is it that permits us to “ring the alarm bell”? Clearly, finding the
You really believe that? of a man who would gaslight (for whatever reason, the reason could not be good) to no end (for years) important ideas, including corrective semiotic guidance; e.g. calling the basis if human and pervasive ecology, “weak.”
I have articulated this in terms of Maxwell’s demons, Manichean (including trickery, in response to other groups being the greater challenge) and Augustinian (an empirical purity spiral, in response to nature being the greater challenge). While I think your response to “gangs” and the loss of “Euroman’s distinctive individuality” is an issue that is resolved by borders and boundaries, which would go far to ending the need for focus on “fair fight.” ...in fact, your focus/emphasis on fighting appears to go a bit too much into natural fallacy.
Those favoring a more empirical basis of systemic boundary control, should in fact favor (what I take to be Gadamer’s concern in hermeneutic circularity) concern for marginals - those just within the group, marginalized, perhaps even because they are somehow better/ as opposed to the red cape, those just outside the group or antagonistic to the group; further, this place for our marginals is in contrast to GW’s gaslighting that I propose a marginal perspective of which “the market has spoken against” as opposed to his perspective being a constraint of Jewish marketing. Regarding marginals and boundaries, I say more empirical, because the concept of “non-empirical” is suspect, as everything that we consider is empirical somewhere along the line. The alarm bells would be sounded by those attending to borders and boundaries, structured by accountability to some analogy to unionization - another idea which GW categorically dismissed, for his pure “naturalism”, a dismissiveness apparently spurred on by other motives (that can’t be good). Now, I have observed that the depth grammar of the left as unionization and coalition building has been red caped by they YKW (a marketing campaign emphasizing a characterology of “the left”, that has been launched as of 2008, when their horizontal transmission ascended to it its heights in something like 10 niches of power and influence); and became more urgent to maintain White identity as right wing identity (it’s depth grammar’s fixation on objectivism and all the blind spots and vulnerabilities that go along with that); or neither left nor right, anything but grasping the depth grammar and underlying concepts what group (human species) homeostasis requires in reality [because the YKW don’t want that challenge to their power - Plato, “what is the means to defend against ‘the might makes right of despotic elites’, of course, organization of the group against them - while not a purely natural phenomenon, neither is it a corollary to eusociality and loss of distinctive European individuality - in fact, the borders are necessary to maintain individuality; viz., these are matters negotiable within the hermeneutic and social construction of praxis; which in turn, is not opposed to science, but rather scientism: bad science and bad application of science]. When White advocates speak of “the left” they are, of course, talking about the Marxist international and anti-national left which would rupture our borders and the Cultural Marxist Left which would rupture our White boundaries. But those unionizations (workers of the world, in the first case, and anti-White unions in coalitions in the case of cultural Marxism, are not White Left Ethnonational - i.e., not about a unionization of our European genus and species. Now then, coming back to the question of GW’s supposed concern to find the right combination of words, while we can understand his touchiness in wanting to undo (liberalize) the boundary of the Norman aristocracy, that is not the same as undoing the boundary of the ethnonation; and you might be expressing the naivete of your Augustinian predilection, James; both in aversion to dealing with GW’s motivations; but largely because his reaction would appear to serve your strong suit, a more sheer, scientific approach - into objectivism and averse to the perspective of social group advocacy, particularly as it has been so terribly (((red caped))), to where they have people believing that it is anti-science, anti-nature, does not deal with reality; and thus misplaces priority with an objectivist purity spiral as opposed to seeing objective inquiries into truth, facts and nature as crucial, but nevertheless properly placed as feedback to the calibration of the homeostasis of our relative systemic interests in human ecology - which feeds back objectively, of course, to the objective concern for pervasive ecology and the need to coordinate with otherwise conflicting human interests/if not especially ecological - a coordination that could be more ecological through the accountability that unionization structures of relative group interests as opposed to running rough shod over accountability through modernist, objectivist purity spiraling. These are concerns of group systemic maintenance that post modernity properly understood, was conceived to deal with (and can, certainly despite GW’s strawmen) For one thing, the right combination of words cannot be “the left = liberal” when the left is seen as a matter of unionization (you are conserving what is within against liberalization of the boundaries), liberal only where “the left” is seen as exclusively the domain of non- or anti Whites, in Marxist international/anti national boundaries or Cultural Marxist anti White boundaries; but not in application (unionization) of European genus and species. A unionization which they clearly do not want us to do, hence the marketing campaign of the red caping of “the left” in order to have Whites chase away concepts that we need for homeostasis, while joining ranks with the YKW with their more and more hegemonically organized EGI
A corrective note then regarding Incommensurability vs GW’s bad will: never trying to give accurate reading to what I am saying but invariably only looking for a way to dismiss it (he would perhaps try to say that he said that I was talking then about “set theory” not the way Khun was using the term, but I did not say that I was using the term exactly as Khun does; in fact, specified that he was ridiculously prone to say I must be beholden to his entire program and Jewish sociology (not in application to White ethnonational interests, which in fact are my application) if I glean one aspect; but rather, as ever, makes no effort to understand what I say in the light of highest criteria - quite the opposite. Since you believe, James, and I might agree, that Whites are more attuned to being fair in the adjudicating of conflicts, you should not be averse to understanding what I meant; and you should beware of GW’s demonstrable dishonesty (and the suggestion that it is pathological), which would propose that I have something like a private definition of incommensurability, when I don’t know how many thousands (probably tens of thousands) have been acquainted:
…. Here is the the term incommensurate in the gist of how I apply the term, while Guessedworker is up to his endless gaslighting, trying to say that I was the only one using the term in this way, as if I plucked it out of my arbitrary convenience. …
Now, having said that, I need to be clear that I am not a thousand percent verbatim with Pearce either, in his deployment of “incommensurability”, as I have a different focus of application. Of course, the first salient example, in how it serves to stave off chasing the red cape of proposing oneself an asshole, “against equality”. GW acted as if I was in awe of his great argument when he posted an article in which he said that I was arguing for equality, when in fact, I was utterly disgusted that he would try to strawman me as saying something I NEVER had, i.e. argue “for equality” (Gottfried’s strawman of ‘the left” in order to distract from the depth grammar of unionization), and whereas in fact, I had written several articles about how arguing equality / inequality was a bad idea, especially to argue against equality, and that terms of commensurability/incommensurability (and comparability, in order to stave off misrepresentation from GW) are the way to go.
87
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:30 | # Those whose temperament isn’t capable of confronting reproduction’s exponential conflict with a polynomial universe are Shielded by those Sovereigns that find in them something that inspires protection. Women and children come to mind but also those who may offer the wisdom of elders. Those who posture as wise elders while denying the reality of that conflict, pretending that “fight” isn’t an essential aspect of Being, are cast out to the mercies of the universe on their own. In the present circumstances we find the hostility toward “Boomers” a reflection of their denial that “fight” is an essential aspect of Being, but this isn’t true of all Boomers nor is such denial limited to that generation. It is endemic to the cycle of civilization. 88
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:10 | # I didn’t say that “fight” isn’t a part of our nature; but that on the more distinctly human level that I call praxis (as per Aristotle), there are options for coordination of differing interests, if not negotiation, perhaps even cooperation. As I have suggested, to me the major fight is for the re-establishment of our borders and boundaries for sovereignty of European genus and species; and what it means to man-up in that regard (through unionization); if others would try to deny our freedom from association in service of our genus and species, there I am willing to take a stand (as it is worthwhile, whereas I don’t believe individual duels will change much). 89
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:21 | # D writes:
Your pretense of cooperation is made mockery when you deny an attempt to reach out to you by such an interjection not called for by the present discourse. 90
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:26 | # http://fairchurch.org/MayTheBestWin.html May The Best Win The slogan, “May The Best Win” inspires in you a feeling of nobility. You also feel concern. Best at what? Win what? These are fair questions about what is “fair”. You can only love your adversary—love your enemy—when these questions are answered. To achieve that love you demand mutual agreement. In reaching such agreements, you and your enemies Create a culture: Cultivating that which you can agree is Good. Now, imagine. Imagine that culture and join with others in The Fair Church℠ to Create it. It is your right and duty as a mortal sovereign inherited from The Immortal Sovereign: Your Creator 91
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:27 | # So, now, DanielS, take your presumptions and cram them up your ass. 92
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:34 | # I wouldn’t say that I pretend cooperation as that is a bit too much to hope for at this point, but rather seek steps toward coordination, a different matter. Yes, I might have held back on the knock dueling that this point, knowing that you are going to be a bit sensitive there, having gone out on a limb to conceive of a means to stave off the dysgenic and eusocial aspects of conventional warfare which can destroy the distinct individualism of Europeans. Still, I think your motives are good; and I probably should have held back on that one; didn’t really need to add that remark; for someone who has taken on the matter of communications tactics, my interpersonal skills are not great. 93
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:41 | # Well, James, my last comment was posted in regard to comment 89. As for 90 and 91, I am happy to leave you and those who are attracted to it gather with that. Whereas I will appeal to and go my way with others who find that stuff a bit weird. 94
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:46 | # But I need to ask, what is the “presumption” that was so offensive to you? 95
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:52 | # The Minimalist Rules For Sortocracy stand in stark contrast to the contempt shown to his readers by DanielS’s logorrhea. If we are to avert a fratricidal Thirty Years War, it will be due to attempts such as I have made and if we suffer that fratricide, it will be due to the contempt shown others by the likes of DanielS and the not-quite-as-egregious Curt Doolittle with his “constitution”—both pretending to supremacy over the preemptive treaty regime I have set forth. It is very hard work being compassionate enough to one’s readers that one is ruthless with one’s own expression. Nowhere is this more essential than when we are attempting to avoid killing each other, let alone cooperate with each other. 96
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 17:02 | #
It’s not logorreah. I don’t say anything that I don’t see as necessary to say.
Excuse me, James, but I am all for averting the Thirty Years war and that kind of war will not happen as a result of my “contempt.” Not in a million years.
James, go and promote your ideas (I find some of them invaluable, others, in my estimation, not); if you can get a county, a state, a nation to go along with your whole program, fine. I am not interested to live there, but neither do I see the need to fight; you agree to leave me alone, in my place.
Jim, it is imperialist and supremacist ideologies, one’s which are bereft the accountability of praxis and its correctivity, which I perceive as the threat, and who are in fact the aggressors. 97
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 18:05 | # DanielS says: “you agree to leave me alone, in my place” You can’t be bothered to read a few sentences that I’ve carefully crafted as the minimalist rules of Sortocracy nor even watch a video I made that, for the reading impaired, explains it in an easily digested audiovisual form. How do I know this? Look at what you said. Your contempt is what is presumptuous. When our people finally tire of the slaughter, with most of them looking for some outside force to come in and restore order, you won’t be there to prevent the treaty regime I’ve set forth because you’ll be long gone. However, and this is what really pisses me off, behavior such as yours in the present, makes it less likely that an outside force will find it necessary to prevent Sortocracy from being considered. Oh and if you think people coming out of a Thirty Years War, with their most heroic young men purged from the gene pool (the way Curt Doolittle likes it with his “domestication” conceit) are going to be looking at all your “necessary words” for an alternative to being taken over by the outside force, you’re out of you fucking mind and/or you’re an agent of the outside force. I tend to believe mostly the latter—in extended phenotypic terms of the “We wuz Kangs” EGI. 98
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 19:26 | # Here’s how to minimize the software cyber attack surface: Award money for reducing the size of the executable that passes the test suite. You’re welcome. But there’s a gotcha… America has already lost the cyber war to India and the Affirmative Action Brahmans that have invaded and occupied the nervous system of the US will never permit a fair fight like this. How will they achieve this feat? With the help of those who interject nonsense whenever the possibility presents itself, even if only in their fevered imaginations, that they might lose in a fair contest of any kind whatsever. I’m not going to belabor the role of a true king that loves his people in setting forth the rules of fair contests, and the absolute contempt in which I hold those who pretend to such a throne who refuse to face the fact that they should exhibit such love but, instead, start blathering about ‘cooperation’ as though it is a substitute, but rest assured, they will either fail quickly and thereby permit the success of the people or they will succeed and doom their people to oblivion. 99
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 00:32 | #
No. You presume contempt. I didn’t say that you didn’t have rules for negotiation. I’ve read it already and listened to the video already. The video is brilliant in large part - in my opinion (and for most other people, probably) up to the point where you start talking about pair-wise duels again. The style about shields and sovereigns does not appeal to me, where and when you do that.
I never tried to prevent your treaty regime, never said that I wanted to. When it comes to contempt for ideas, it is on you (and even more so, GW - whose endless gaslighting and strawamanning I do have well deserved contempt for). You are the ones guilty of the false either/or, mutual exclusivity and dismissive contempt.
I do express my opinion that your concern for eugenics and loss of individuality is overdrawn - i.e., that there are other ways to stave that off when our borders are re established; but talk of pair wise duels and shield maidens is not going to appeal to a lot of people to sort into your place - that’s on you. And still, I do not have contempt. I have contempt for imperial supremacists (such as the Nazis); or any imperialist ideology (such as the Abrahamic religions) where it would impose destruction upon me and people I care about.
I give to whom it may concern messages, my words are necessary to those who care about European peoples; the inter European/White wars were a stunning horror to me since awareness as a child - how could this have happened and how could people treat this as due course of events, how could innocent White people let themselves be punished for historical misdeeds of some Whites; coupled with the imposition of other peoples upon us (and seeing things like Malcolm X saying the black man would rule), left me unable to focus much concern on anything but changing this imposition.
You call me crazy? Maybe others aren’t so lazy as to refuse to read through a few paragraphs of mine. Nor so contemptuous as to not do absurd violence to the meaning (suggesting that I don’t care for/am responsible for the 30 Years War; or that I have power and inclination to obstruct people from considering your proposed solution to avoid such wars). 100
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 02:26 | # And since you speak in these terms, you can shove your association of me with Curt Doolittle up your ass. You are the one who was treating him like he was normal quite recently. 101
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 09:26 | # Curtly speaking , DanielS , how little do you do ? 103
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 10:25 | # Here’s a couple questions for you, Al. 1. Do you think that the Holocaust was real? 2. What do you think about Hitler? 104
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 10:37 | # DanielS at his over - optimistically presented doctoral viva voce defence : “You are all idiots , last night , I was advised to wean off drugs and was given a methadone suppository. Hard to swallow it down but for all the good it did me I might have well stuck it up my ass.” 105
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 10:45 | # Really Al? The absurdities that you resort to when you can’t argue in good faith. 106
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:03 | # Well , DanielS. The Holocaust question is a non sequitur . Anyway , I have the same faith in Holocaust mythology as you doubtless have in Paul Bunyan and his Blue Ox. The Hitler question is easily answered. He was the only person to stand up to the Jews. That’s what I think. Yesterday , the BBC was banned in China. Why ? Well , the constant Jew - led agitprop in favour of scofflaw Third World “migrants , Muslims, Blacks , Trannies et al. What happened yesterday in China was , up to a point , Hitler redux. A favourite writer of mine coined the phrase ” More means worse” but certainly not in this case. 107
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:05 | #
I’ll answer those two. 1. The Holocaust is a control strategy executed on a paradigmatic scale. There are multiple benefits for Jews from the strategy, including self-affirmation and binding, self-enrichment, the binding of Western governments to the protection of Israel and, in part, to its funding, the enguiltifying of all European-descended peoples from childhood on, the dehumanisation of European people’s nationalism, control over Europeans’ attempts to defend their existence and their homelands from the migration flood. The history of deaths in the labour camps in the east, from 1942 to 1945 is a different matter and is the subject of highly controlled formal investigation which I shall not comment upon, since you have not asked about it. 2. Herr Hitler was a war-mongering German imperialist, political gangster, and mass murderer whose ambition and sociopathic lack of moderation led to the loss of millions of European lives and put nationalism beyond use for generations of Europeans.
Can you work out why ripping you to ideological shreds is not the object of my contact with you? 108
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:43 | # First of all, the question was for Al, to demonstrate the motivation of those who have egged you on near invariable antagonism to the resource I brought to bear.
Because you can’t do it and never have. Have done nothing but resort to gaslighting and strawmen to prop up your unmerited, gargantuan ego in your reactionary, puerile autobiography, reified in narcissistic personality disorder as it requires that you try force me into the role of your foil; and your dishonesty in that motivation is clear to all. 109
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 12:17 | # Daniel, look at (a) your own emotional condition, as it is betrayed by your language, reflexive denialism, and driven prolixity, and then ask yourself that question again. Then try to appreciate (b) the difference between the typical, boorish white American thread-warrior too too full of “rugged individualism” and ready epithets, and someone enculturated in middle-class English reserve. You might also consider the grounds such a person may have for not pressing too hard on (a), though you would need to deflate your ego to accomplish both tasks. However, if you succeed you will be in a better position to operate as a helpful and useful brother in nationalism and not, say, a damaged ego-centrist inflicting isolation upon himself while in search of validation. 110
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 13:00 | #
My emotional condition is fine, thank you. Ready to be revved-up and rise to the challenge of your dishonesty at any time, then relax again in the satisfaction of my honesty and a job well done.
You deserve it.
Projection
STEM reactionaries, in particular, try to say that I speak to be obscure, whereas the honest person will see and realize that I say what I need to say, and with appropriate words.
LoL
Such a person: LoL
Obviously, you are the one in need of ego deflation; a vast understatement in fact.
A projection; take your own advice. I’m fine.
111
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jan 2022 21:58 | # NotDanielS: “I notice rule 1 of Sortocracy would leave my group to live the way we wanted and in place unless by rule 3 we were outbid for our territory by having more people wanting to live there not sharing our way of life. In that event we’d be provided territorial value equal to our population elsewhere—probably very near by. Even if we were offered assistance in moving by rule 2, that’s not acceptable. I want to stay where I am.” Yes, NotDanielS. I rather expected it to be unacceptable to you, and to many others, which is why I say in the video that I expect we’ll have to pass through a Thirty Years War before we can revisit the terms of The Treaty of Westphalia and add the provision for reallocation of nation state territory based on the number of people preferring a particular way of life assortatively migrating. You’ll come to the negotiating table then—assuming you’re still alive. NotDanielS: “Rule 5 refers to natural duel. I don’t want to live that way.” Did you miss the part of rule 5 that limits it to Sortocracy’s replacement for prisons with exile—as the place of ultimate exile in nature preserves? NotDanielS: “No. I didn’t miss that. I’m just worried that out of the thousands of States that I would have to choose from, none of the States I would want to live in would want me because I’m such a stupid asshole—so I want a prison system where I’ll be gang-raped by men of color. That’s why a Thirty Years War killing off a hundred million or so white people is more appealing to me.” Yes, I rather expected you’d see things that way, but I think you’re mistaken and that once you had experienced being gang-raped—men of color or not—you’d put up with a world where you had a choice of thousands of States—none of which could imprison you. Now, don’t get me wrong: I know you don’t want a world where anyone anywhere in it might be able to engage in natural duel because it scares the bejeezus out of you just thinking about it. That’s another reason why I expect we’ll have to endure another Thirty Years War before people start behaving like adults. 112
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 06:12 | #
I NEVER suggested that something like that could not be unacceptable to me. And therefore, all the rest of the bullshit that ensues from you shows YOU to be the stupid asshole and a liar. Laughable, in fact, with your accusations of my responsibility for the Thirty Years War and your fantasy Dungeons and Dragons community with Sovereigns and Fair Shield Maidens fawning over pair-wise duels. 113
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 06:16 | #
Typo, sorry: I NEVER suggested that something like that could not be Watch, he’s going to say it was a Freudian slip, when in fact I meant indeed: I NEVER suggested that something like that could not be acceptable to me. And therefore, all the rest of the bullshit that ensues from you shows YOU to be the stupid asshole and a liar - putting words in my mouth that I would not say. Laughable, in fact, with your accusations of my responsibility for the Thirty Years War and your fantasy Dungeons and Dragons community with Sovereigns and Fair Shield Maidens fawning over pair-wise duels. 114
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:11 | # ...and if we don’t adopt this nonsense, that we will necessarily evolve into eusocial insect-like creatures, broadly desexed for the most part of males, who become relegated as eunuchs/worker-bees. 115
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:09 | # NotDaniels: “Yeah, Bowery. I said ‘I want to stay where I am’ while, in contrast, my DanielS doppleganger said ‘...leave me alone, in my place’. If you can’t see the difference then maybe you should stop using me as a way of filling in the holes in the discourse left lying around for midwits to fall into!” Uh, yeah, I already admitted to NotThorn that I am perhaps wasting my time caring about the midwits. 116
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:33 | # James, how stupidly literal minded are you? How is anybody with half a wit supposed to think that if I say, “you would be happy to leave me alone, in my place” that I am speaking, rather, about some concrete place that you are contesting? And you call me, a midwit? Well, you going there and them some with added dishonesty. You have to exploit an abstract statement like that (?), knowing good well what I meant, that I was positing a basic agreement that we’d live in separate places/polities that we do not care to contest, on the order of your sortocracy idea; voting with the feet. 117
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:47 | # Let me clarify further, I toss out a remark to note that I can agree with you, James, to sort our separate ways, and I am fine to leave you alone with your experiment/human ecology and I am going to live in a place which I presumed was not somewhere that you are laying claim to (anyway, it’s abstract, and that is the concept, so why would I even worry about your laying claim otherwise?) But now I find that you presume that I want to stay in some place that you are laying claim to. Guessedworker said that you are a little crazy, and on that one I can agree. 118
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:50 | # GW writes: “we really have to find the solution (indeed, the only thing for which we can really find a solution), is the zeitgeist.” Dawkins once wrote in praise of what he called “the moral zeitgeist” that any rational person can see is destroying the world. There being so few of us who can see it destroying the world, hence so few collective resources we’d best find a fulcrum with a very long lever arm to move it. I waved the red cape of “Dawkins” around not to test your English middle class reserve, but to point out that it is the abuse of our “moral” capacity that is destroying the world via the zeitgeist. That’s why I refuse to give ground on the phrase “fair evolution” and related phrases such as “fair fight”. Now, again, I know I’ve just waved another red cape around at your English middle class reserve as “fair fight” threatens to interject “natural duel” into the present discourse and make it impossible for us to address each other as brothers. But, I believe I have done all I can to tell you and eveyone else, via Sortocracy’s laconic rules that all I’m asking of you is that you let me be in a prison isolated from you all and that you should not take this as an insult any more than a good Jew should take it as an insult that he is excluded from some country somewhere in the world. I’ve said this over and over and over and over and over again in so many ways—offered this olive branch so many times—that it is most ungracious to not take it up by interpreting “fair fight” in any manner than that which is obviously indicated by the “moral zeitgeist” embodied in the phrase: “May the best win!” This is nowhere more the case than when I couple the phrase “fair fight” with an explicit example of a contest to bring impartial rigor to bioinformatics furthering the science of inclusive fitness. What a “May the best win!” moral zeitgeist says is that we are all here to further the joy of creation and that if any of us “lose” it is only from the “individual” point of view. When I bring up the notions of “Sovereign” and “Shielded” in this context, I am not imposing a particular social structure, such as the one governing the nature refuge prison to which my “rugged individualism” is to be relegated. Any society whatsoever has the social roles of “sovereign” and “shielded” and any society whatsoever has some notion of “fair evolution”—formally stated or merely resident in its ineffable “moral zeitgeist”. This is why I always start with the question of “fair evolution” which, due to the conflict between exponential reproduction and polynomial physical universe, necessarily entails a dispute process that some individuals will experience as “losing”. However, if they are truly members of the collective that make up that culture (what I call “artificial selection regime”) that is identical with its “moral zeitgeist”, they will have consolation from a higher identity. 119
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 17:35 | # Daniels writes: “I can agree with you, James, to sort our separate ways” Then that’s up to the point that we must face the limited universe in which we both live. We must agree to agree on _something_ if only on how to divide up necessary living space. Daniels writes: “But now I find that you presume that I want to stay in some place that you are laying claim to.” Let’s be very careful here, because this is why we’re in danger of rhyming with a Thirty Years War: The 5 rules of Sortocracy are (as I admitted in the video describing them) “supremacist” rules in that they do not recognize the legitimacy of territorial allocations outside of Sortocracy’s method of territorial allocation. This is, after all, the nature of any treaty regime. However, and this is the crucial point that is mendaciously attacked by “the moral zeitgeist” continually blathering about “white supremacy”: Sortocracy’s “moral zeitgeist” is _minimal_ “supremacy” which is obtained by specifying the _minimal_ rules by which we may avoid violent conflict—conflict that ensued despite the Treaty of Westphalia precisely because it failed to provide _minimal_ rules for territorial allocation. Our resident anti-Christ characterizes these _minimal_ rules as a board game or something. Yes. Game theory did, after all, originate in the wake of WW II with von Neumann et al attempting to come up with a theory of how to avoid such a bloodbath in the future. Of course, von Neumann et al, being Jews, could not take their theory into the obvious intellectual territory offered by a regime that replaces prison boundaries with exile outside of territorial boundaries*—Jews being terrified that someone somewhere might live without their benighted guidance and thereby show via an experimental control that such benighted guidance—far from beneficent—is actually causing the societal ills their benighted guidance purports to prevent. I challenge anyone to come up with a _less_ “supremacist” notion of war-averting territorial allocation as clearly and succinctly stated as that provided by “The Minimalist Rules For Sortocracy”. So, yes, whites tend to be fair minded and tend to view fairness as a supreme value—which is to say that whites, on average, are innately morally superior to others on average precisely because they are more opposed to supremacy than are others. That this can then be distorted by the likes of Disraeli into a world dominating mercantile sociopathy that then tars the white race with the phrase “white supremacist” should not be confused with the present usage of that phrase which actually conflates “white racial moral superiority” with “white domination of others because they are so morally bankrupt”. Now, having said all that, when you took my very carefully worded statements about territorial allocation and said to me “you (jab) presume that I (ds) want to stay in some place that you (jab) are laying claim to” it is basically claiming that I am violating the terms of my own proffered treaty regime at the very outset since any “claim” can be made only on the conditions of the territorial allocation operations agreed to. Not only have those allocation operations not taken place, hence no “claim” is in effect, but the odds that out of the thousands of States likely to obtain, any two given States will come into conflict over territory is very small indeed and one must note that we’re not even talking about _individuals_ coming into conflict here in that extremely rare event. So, of course, I would agree with you and GW regarding my “sanity” if I had spent years trying to get across the terms of the proposed treaty regime only to, in the present context, violate said terms. On the other hand, are we not all Mad Men by challenging the Supremacist Moral Zeitgeist that possesses all the machinery of the global economy that is destroying the world? *The pseudo-counterexample being “libertarians” who merely demand that one get enough money from them somehow to buy land or something before you are qualified, as are billionaires more or less nowadays, to living in your own way within some combination of “gated communities” and jet-setting jurisdictional arbitrage which is what the mendaciously named book “The Sovereign Individual” is all about. 120
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 26 Jan 2022 03:03 | # I have not wasted my time reading ‘The Sovereign Individual’ but as I am former student Libertarian , Davidson’s ideas might once have resonated with me. Nowadays I live in a gated community , with ex - Gurkha gate guards . The entire premise of Libertarianism is based on jolly good chaps “getting along” splendidly and doing the “obviously sensible thing”. It has much to do with reality as the BBC has to do with defending White Interests. DanielS , I have no objection to GW answering your question and in the unlikely event that I had , It’s GW’s blog. My only mild critique of GW’s management might be that he displays a preternatural tolerance of profoundly tenacious and humourless bores. 122
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:55 | # James, Perhaps another way to connect my emphasis on authenticity to your (for me and for others, I think, too narrow) emphasis on honour and the pairwise duel could be to shine the light a couple of steps back from the latter. Those two steps would be: (a) the societal declension of the West, which broadly means this:
... and (b) the decline in the general cognitive health required among the people so that, ordinarily, evolutionarily adaptive choice-making may not preponderate over maladaptive choice-making. In other words, the (wider) problem which you seek to resolve falls into the line of thinking which arrives at authenticity in the lived life as absolute in respect of honour, fair-dealing, and all emergent goods. On that basis, one might then conclude that authenticity is actually a conditional genetic interest, and then likewise, perhaps, also the general cognitive health among the people for normative and adaptive social and life choices. 123
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:45 | # That would then give us a table of European ethnic genetic interests, sorted by order of kind that would look something like this:
124
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Dec 2022 18:27 | # GW: Perhaps another way to connect my emphasis on authenticity to your (for me and for others, I think, too narrow) emphasis on honour and the pairwise duel... In the context of the minimalist rules for Sortocracy, it is a misunderstanding (at best) to bring up “pairwise duel” unless one has specified the operations of a state that minimizes imprisonment. Why is that? Because the whole point of my coming up with Sortocracy was to replace pairwise duels as territorial allocation with group-enforced territories while correcting The Treaty of Westphalia’s error that has led to so many “brother wars” over territory and accommodating individual choice as a means of standing down from what you apparently do not see coming: A repeat of The Thirty Years War over quasi-religious differences. So before you go bringing up “pairwise-duels” again as criticism, let’s make sure you have proposed something similarly operational and constraining on yourself. 125
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Dec 2022 13:22 | # James, would you accept a meaning of “narrow” that centred on the exclusive, determining focus of, let us say, the scientific or technical mind as opposed to the inclusive, compositional focus of, say, the artistic mind, making communication between the two always a quest for a synthesis native to neither? My comment @122 was a proposal that “the problems” of our race originate in both historical and historiographical forces with the consequence in our time that men and women are so enworlded in them, so buried beneath the weight of them and, in consequence, are so self-estranged, so artificialised, that it may be difficult-to-impossible to bring them to wholeness. For example, if we allow that religious faith is the evolutionary response to fallenness, and we have no other, on what do we fall back when the systemic religion of the West is one of the estranging historiographical forces? We can only go back beyond the systemisation of Christianity, perhaps even suspending faith (at least theoretically) to find a way, if one exists. Hence Heidegger and the Ontology Project. Daniel would get very mad at me for not affirming his “specificatory” project. In regard to my array of wayward observations, I wanted our folk not to set aside their artifice because someone has pointed it out to them and said “bad”, but because it is other to their truth. In spare terms, a people who do not live in their truth, and who are told to live in freedom, will not know the truth of freedom either. To live in and by one’s truth is the only way to evade the fall into further artifice. Only thus may we re-make our fallen world in our own image. Daniel affirmed such emergentism, but only because it was a point of synthesis he could put in the bank and get on with his own stuff. He was disinterested in the rest, which is basically a compositional search for the profound, such as it is, because it held him up. I thank you for your interest in the ontology. However, I still hold that we cannot assort or become honour-bound unless and until profundity returns to us - not is returned to us by the action of intellectual others, because that cannot happen, but is found ... re-found ... in ourselves. 126
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:24 | # You do recognize of course that, perhaps except those of us who have undergone Corpus Callosotomy, these two minds are native to all of us, but I get your point: You see me as so-emphasizing the scientific or technical as to make me a “native” of that mind. But it is quite interesting that I see my “emphasis” on honour and the pariwise duel as not so much “emphasis” as valuing these in a manner that I am simply incapable of adequately communicating. You will try in vain to dissuade me of my—how do they say it nowadays…. oh yeah….— My Live Experience. I may have made a terrible mistake to ever attempt to share my Lived Experience with you and others—and not simply because you would not be able to understand, but more tragically, because you would be most capable of misunderstanding and thereby develop and allergy to my attempts to, as you say, quest for a synthesis with you. If responding to them you must continually refer back to “pairwise duel” as though I were a horny teenage boy With Only One Thing On My Mind and you an attractive teenage girl after our prom worried about her chastity—well—if that’s where we are, I’d just as soon escort you home to your father well before midnight and not because otherwise I would have to rape you—but merely so as to put your mind at ease. Artistic enough for you? How can I put your mind at sufficient ease to put “pairwise duel” out of your mind in our attempts to at synthesis? I had hoped that by setting forth proposals for operations by which we may process disputes without “pairwise duels”, that you would find it unnecessary to continually tell me that I only have one thing on my mind. I’m not saying I don’t want to live in the kind of society that My Lived Experience tells me is right for me—nor am I telling you that I won’t do everything in my power to achieve that kind of life, but that is a far cry from telling you that you must share my emphasis, let alone values let alone Lived Experience. I’ve set up multiple layers of protection against me for you in my own mind and proffered them just so we may get on with the synthesis without this nonsense. PS: “Honour” is another matter since it covers a much broader semantic landscape including what has come to be the epithet “honour culture”. Every court appearance requires the judge to be addressed as “Your Honour”. Those wielding public trust and authority are addressed as “The Honourable…” In commerce we have the notion of “Honouring one’s agreements…” as well as the pervasive use of the word “Honour” with respect to military service. This is such an essential aspect of culture that I have a very hard time with attempts to expunge the very word from our language with the epithet “honour culture” and can only view that as an exercise in cultural subversion. Some other phrase should be used to distance societies engaging in female genital mutilation from those that exhibit more humane means of maintaining social hygiene. 127
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 02:26 | # ‘Honour’ Culture exists today in Muslim societies and , with its concomitant , Semitic evil corollary, Shame , dictates how many stupid girls are killed to preserve it. Although two of the Abrahamic religions have abandoned the Jew - authored Honour / Shame dichotomy , Islam still has many adherents who believe that the societal fulcrum of their family honour is situated in the vaginal canal of their young unmarried females. 128
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 03:03 | # It goes without saying , or should , that I could Not ( Americans, please note the phrase’s correct usage ) care less about Jew - derived , Muslim customs unless they bring their Semitic atrocities to UK. 129
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 03:47 | # Surely , it is not incumbent upon Aryans to alter their language(s) to supinely accommodate their ancient Indo - European derived tongues ( https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/cambridge-student-sanskrit-grammatical-problem-b2245596.html ) to modern , racially alien , linguistic fashion. Kudos to the Cantabrigian Brahmin whose long since diluted Aryan DNA doubtless predates that of the Saxons in England. Note to anti - Whites : Despite decades of Governmental anti - Brahmin Affirmative Action this group still dominate India’s Elite. A bit like Silicon Valley , one might be forgiven for thinking. 131
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 00:19 | # James: I may have made a terrible mistake to ever attempt to share my Lived Experience with you and others ... No, no, was it a terrible mistake for me to try explain my antecedents in the comment @125? Both you are I wish to bring (our) people to wholeness. We approach them differently - in part, because we operate ... focus ... differently, yes. But also because I have no faith impulse and you do. I have to be pro foundation, so to speak, but the bones of it are the same. Another example (a tangent, perhaps, rather than an overlap) is in our respective treatment of the sovereign principle. It seems to account for a great part of your charity and compassion for your fellow Man, in his reduced circumstance. It is definitely also a driver of my emergentism. Same subject, then. Different treatments. Mine more abstract, of course, but we are probably closer than you allow. On honour culture, a given culture may exhibit it in the varied ways you mention. But are the agreement makers and the judges and the army officers honourable in themselves or only in the discharge of their social obligations? The former speaks of an existential seriousness - “something to do with death”, to quote Jason Robards’ character in Once Upon A Time In The West. I’m not hostile to honour per se, but to its socialised production or simulation. Post a comment:
Next entry: The double standard of the French government on free speech
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) Commentsweremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) |
Posted by false amalgam/false on Sat, 17 Oct 2020 23:19 | #
False amalgam of liberalism to social concern. False opposition of social concerns to nationalism.