Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:50 | #

Cladrastis,

What we REQUIRE is a sea change in leadership – from a self-serving “universalist” kleptocracy to an altruistic and philosophically-rooted particularist aristocracy; an aristocracy that will place the interests of the nation before the personal interests of the individuals who are a part it. Apropos we must address two related questions: how do we bring about such a change within the extant political framework, and what will prevent an ultra-nationalist European aristocracy from sliding inexorably back into the oblivion of plutocracy?

Yes!

We need to determine what qualities we want in our aristocracy and how to go about selecting for those qualities (i.e. intelligence, character, loyalty, endurance, et cetera).  This could all be done through an extensive and arduous process of initiation by which one generation prepares the elite of the next.  Promising candidates might enter a special program that is tailor made to select for certain qualities, install certain values, and develop spiritual hardiness.

More on this later…

We will “fix” the plutocratic system by instituting policies that invert the relationship between political and economic power.

Two questions:

(1) Has this ever been done before?
(2) Is there a detailed theoretical explication of how such an inversion would work?

Posted by Joe of the Mountain on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 04:00 | #

The problem of course, is that the same characteristics that tend toward wealth accumulation are those that make for the most attractive leadership.  (Not always - we live in a fallen and corrupt world.)

I don’t see how this plan would work, although I like the direction it looks.

The answer now and always has been INDIVIDUAL DISCERNMENT and DISCRIMINATION.  There is no way to out-source the fundamental responsibilities of civilization, yet nation after nations tries and tries again.

As my three year old son might put it, “Liberty is thirsty work!”

Posted by Rollory on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:03 | #

The first paragraph is good.  By the fourth, the piece is somewhere off in the weeds.  Marxism is not a reliable guide except for disaster.

That said -

” Apropos we must address two related questions: how do we bring about such a change within the extant political framework, and what will prevent an ultra-nationalist European aristocracy from sliding inexorably back into the oblivion of plutocracy?”

For the second part: properly chosen and examined incentives.

A monarchy, bounded by properly chosen traditions and standards of behavior, will 1) be related to most or all of the people of the nation, making the king the head of an actual family or tribal grouping, and not just a propositional leader; and, 2) holding the right to the nation by virtue of existing ownership.  The king owns the country.  It is therefore in his interest to take care of it, and to protect the property rights of others, for in protecting that principle he protects his own rule.  As a family member, it is in his interest to preserve and strengthen the nation and leave it to his descendants better than he found it, rather than siphoning off bits and pieces of it to the highest bidder to make a quick buck and leaving the consequences for someone else to clean up.

Most European royal families had at least some aspect of this in application - the French Capetien dynasty being the example I am most familiar with.  Intermarriage for purposes of political alliances eventually separated them from their peoples and turned them into an overclass rather than the pre-eminent members of their own peoples, but I don’t think that’s an inevitable error.

It is also worth studying the histories of Rome and Persia - the Persians had comparatively stable and orderly transitions of power on the deaths of their emperors, while in Rome it was a free-for-all every time.  The importance of properly raising children to have a good appreciation of the significance and dangers of power, and not just lunging for it because it’s shiny, is important.  Some families of good breeding trace their ancestry back centuries and while they may not be terribly rich few of them are disastrously poor.  Others go by “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” - a poor man works hard, his son makes a ton of money, the grandson is spoiled and spends it all.  But you have to establish families with the proper familial culture that will not be consumed by money and power.  (This is a matter of several generations at least, if done properly.)

For the first part, well, I don’t think it’s possible to do it as long as the existing political framework exists.  Therefore it has to stop existing.  Therefore people need to start behaving in ways that minimize its impact on them, get used to not holding it in respect, prior to either ignoring it entirely or taking advantage of some crisis.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:06 | #

There are a lot of theories about our natural social order.  My proposals for wealth taxation are a compromise with civilization, which I see as so dangerous it must be set up with fail-safe mechanisms to self-destruct if it starts to behave like a eusocial insect colony thereby sacrificing both our individual moral agency and our sexuality.

Man’s sexuality is threatened by this global organism which sees humans as mere “workers” and anything outside of that something that must be subject to constant surveillance.  Man’s individual moral agency is threatened by the abuse of our moral agency by de facto theocracies including, most recently, Holocaustianity.  Words like “racism” are the equivalent of pheromones: Specialized in bypassing all of man’s unique mental faculties and rendering him less than human.

My preference for reestablishing something approaching an aristocracy is not really compatible with civilization:

An aristocracy formed only of those of our people who agree with each other that if any of them is challenged to mortal combat to the death by another of them, he must accept or be killed by anyone or any group in any way at any time, conditioned on that mortal combat being held in an environment as close to the state of nature as possible. 

Note:  This is _not_ the old “aristocracy” which the Church allowed to challenge each other to combat to the death but required “commoners” to accept monetary compensation and protected the so-called “aristocracy” from real mortal threats from the mere “commoners”.

No.

ANY MAN MAY DECLARE HIMSELF A PART OF THE ARISTOCRACY, HENCE INDIVIDUALLY SOVEREIGN AND SUBJECT TO AN IMMEDIATE DEATH PENALTY IF HE COWERS FROM ANOTHER SOVEREIGN’S CHALLENGE TO MORTAL COMBAT IN THE STATE OF NATURE—NO RULES, NO OBSERVERS, NO OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE: TWO SOVEREIGNS ENTER A LARGE AREA IN THE WILDS AT OPPOSITE ENDS, AND AT MOST ONE LEAVES ALIVE.

IF ANYONE DOES NOT DECLARE HIMSELF SOVEREIGN HE MUST FIND SOMEONE TO SHIELD HIM FROM CHALLENGES.  IF HE FINDS NO ONE TO SHIELD HIM, HE IS SOVEREIGN.

Note:  The use of “man” and “he” refers only to reproductive age humans—not necessarily males of reproductive age.

Failing that, we must then start to look at proposals such as Drew Frasier’s redefinition of the corporation with a newly constituted aristocracy and something akin to a sacral king as sovereign: subject, himself, to being “sacrificed” if he loses “the mandate of heaven”.  I am far from comfortable with Prof. Frasier’s proposals because of the ambiguities in its agreements.

Another possibility that is more consistent with civilization is to take a sperm sample from those to be part of the aristocracy, put them in authority for a limited term after which they are to be killed, and require all artificial inseminations be from the aristocracy with double blinds on the sperm donation.  This places the genetic interest of the aristocrat with the entire populace.  It also makes sure that he knows there is no point in making deals for himself to enjoy when he leaves office.  Here, again, the aristocracy may include females but then the donation is to an ovum bank.  Death at the end of term is mandatory regardless of gender.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 07:10 | #

Frost doesn’t mention that these same men are to ruthlessly kill on command from “duly constituted authorities”.  Mass warfare replaces individual initiative.  We think of some minority in a ghetto or “white trash” in a bar when we think of individual initiative only because we have forgotten that law does not necessarily preclude individually initiated violence.  It is only “civilization” that does so when “civilization” removes moral agency from men.  Oh, women have their moral agency honored by “modern” civilization in the form of individual female choice in sexual partners, but by “liberating” women in love and not “liberating” men in violence, that was merely a way of psycho-physiologically destroying men with whom the women would ordinarily have children.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:23 | #

After reading Frost, P. (2010). The Roman State and genetic pacification, Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 376-389 it is apparent where Frost’s sympathies lie and to that end why he was unable to talk about lawful individual combat to the death. Likewise, he fails to mention the origin of the word “Pagan” which was, itself, a term of derision by the more civilized Romans, much as “heathen” (of the heath), “hicks” or “hay seed”, etc. became a term of derision for rural folk.

Let me offer you a view from the “pagani” beyond the borders of the Roman/Christian organism (so-called “barbarians”):

A sneak attack on an individual is cowardly.  An individual who refuses to engage in individual combat upon a challenge is cowardly.  Cowards are lawfully killed along with “sodomites” in the same manner. 

A “gang” or roving “band” is what pagans called a “giant” with whom one may converse but is not considered part of humanity—even though cross breeding may occur between humanity and a giant’s components.  A larger group is a “serpent”.  An underhanded larger group is a “viper”.  A militarized larger group is a “dragon”.  What “serpent”, “viper” and “dragon” share that is not shared by a “giant” is the image created by a mass of humans travelling along roads as viewed from a distance.

Note:  None of these organisms are considered human.  None of their components are considered human.  A sneak attack on them or on their components is not considered “cowardly”.  Any attack by a group on these organisms or on their segments/components is not considered “cowardly”.  They may be treated as forces of nature, like other animals—including being subject to hunting packs, if not armies of volunteers raised by individuals for a limited period of time with the clearly stated declaration of the intended outcome—a declaration shared by all volunteers called an “oath”—to kill them and take their loot (for example, the dragon’s gold) and rescue the pagan damsels held hostage by the organism.

Over a long period of time, as one forms these hunting packs more and more often, and must increase the size and persistence of the hunting packs; there is a diminution of the prominence of individual initiative.  This paves the way for, first, blood feud between hunting packs, and then to a loss of the individual perspective entirely.  Thus “civilization” spread into the “pagani” or among the “heathen”.

However, it is apparent that the retention of individual combat—most prominently among the aristocracy—is a sign that much of the pagan genotype persisted into even modern times.  For example, it was until just the last century that a German officer who refused individual combat challenges from other officers could be dishonorably discharged from the German military.

Moreover, the work of mass warfare may be considered, to this day in the middle east, an on going genocide against the “hicks”.

I have some ideas about how to deal with this particular genocide (of our most genetically honorable young men) but am concerned that talking of those ideas would lead to preemption of them by “the beast”.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:47 | #

For no other reason - well maybe.  I enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVbnDBBtg3I

Full film 132 minutes.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v1360630wfT4HmGM

Posted by Bill on Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:52 | #

Second link above @3.47pm is obviously another preview for full film.  Sorry about that.  Looks like full film has been withdrawn.

Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:05 | #

The aristocracy to which I refer is a natural, rather than a hereditary (or titled), aristocracy.  I like the idea (mentioned in some of the responses) of sacral kingship (in my own thinking it is a military triumvirate, never a monarch), in which the kings serve a symbolic role in times of peace and an active role in times of war (and die if they lose the war), but such is a distinct function from that discussed above (and it requires men who are by nature part of the warrior aristocracy, not the intellectual aristocracy). 

I do not think it is possible to maintain for very long a minimal State apparatus.  The longer a society exists, the more problems it will confront; as the society confronts new problems, new social structures will emerge, and it is the State’s responsibility to oversee the growth (and elimination, if need be) of such structures (hence the State too must grow).  Thus, the State becomes more intrusive and totalitarian over time, until it eventually fissions into new and simpler States that begin the growth process anew (ever onward and outward). 

I’m not sure what we are becoming, but I don’t care to constrain that becoming with a protean idea like liberty (though some freedoms like the freedom of expression/language are undoubtedly necessary for a healthy State).  The freedom-loving Celts were crushed and assimilated by the more corporate nations (the Romans, Germans, and English) until they were pushed at last into the peripheral parts of Europe and maintained nothing of their original culture save their language(s) (in a vulgar and bastardized form).  If we are going to win, we should mimic the strategies of the winners of history, not the losers.   

When one enters into a social contract with the State (as a citizen), one’s freedoms – including reproductive freedoms – become limited by that relationship (as in matrimony).  We live in a world of limits – the human population cannot grow forever.  Difficult decisions about who lives, who dies, and who is allowed to have (and in what number) children must be made at some point – or we will exceed those limits to our own evolutionary detriment.  As for me personally, I don’t want to live in a State that does NOT have a eugenics policy; I see the consequences of bad breeding around me all the time, and frankly, I’m disgusted.  The freedoms of those at the bottom end of the bell curve must be most constrained for obvious reasons.  I think that as the quality of our population improves, the State will need to interfere less and less in the lives of citizens (for example, with respect to illicit drugs); within this vein, the “idiotic” segment of the population at some point will be of such a high quality that they will have themselves sterilized (perhaps after one child, perhaps without having any), without being told to do so (or needing an explanation for why they should do so).  It should be noted that sterilization in no way limits sexual fulfillment in human beings (or in most other mammals) – so the assertion that we will “hive” into a eusocial species is highly doubtful.   

Notus,

To my knowledge, no society has ever implemented the idea about which I have written above.  Having said that, I do not claim ownership over it (quite the opposite), and if anyone is inclined to develop it further, he is more than welcome to do so.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 00:52 | #

Well we have some fundamentally different views on history, sex and success so a compromise is necessary. 

Above is the start of a description of one route:

Term-limited aristocrats killed at the end of their term, with their individual (not just ethnic) genetic interests fused with the body politic.

You want them to be intellectuals?  Fine, but there is something to be said for applied intellect and balancing the body with the mind in survival with/against nature, as demonstration of intellect; lest we end up Jewish.

Posted by evans on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 07:23 | #

James,

This is off-topic, but I thought you might be interested since this deals with a topic that you’ve paid some attention to before: autism.

Some doctors in Florida, led by a certain Dr. Mark Geier, have been chemically castrating adolescent autistic boys and promoting it as a new treatment for autism.

They’ve been injecting the boys with “Lupron,” a prostate cancer treatment drug that halts production of testosterone.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/08/07/inconvenient-boys-chemically-neutered-for-autism-therapy/

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-autism-treatment-20100803,0,601521,full.story

Posted by McTaggert on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 09:41 | #

A “gang” or roving “band” is what pagans called a “giant” with whom one may converse but is not considered part of humanity—even though cross breeding may occur between humanity and a giant’s components.  A larger group is a “serpent”.  An underhanded larger group is a “viper”.  A militarized larger group is a “dragon”.  What “serpent”, “viper” and “dragon” share that is not shared by a “giant” is the image created by a mass of humans travelling along roads as viewed from a distance.

Does this have any connection to the traditional myths and stories of the dragon, the fearsome and dangerous monster, and the lone, heroic knight who goes out to slay it?  The dragon is a mythical creature in China as well, though it’s viewed positively over there.  Does this have something to do with them being a more group-oriented culture?  Do you think the dragon mythology in both the West and China has a common ultimate origin?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:09 | #

Going off topic (but in a good cause) ...

Just wanted to note here, after a cursory examination of some past years’ posts, that the cognitive quality of the site seems to be ascending, in terms both of the posts and especially the comments. It would seem that a genuine intellectual community of the Far Right is coalescing around MR. Many excellent insights have been proffered, albeit unsystematically. At some point it might be worthwhile to try to tap that community formally to develop some sort of ideological manifesto for what is clearly a growing global New Racial Right.

I would be interested in hearing from others whether this has been done (at least in recent decades). One problem our movement faces is, I believe, this lack of a formal document describing our political aims (this is especially true in the US, insofar as we lack any nationalist political movement or party; rather ironic, given that the masses of our (white) people are more broadly rightist than at least West Europeans). There are now many excellent scholarly resources (eg, Race, Evolution and Behavior, On Genetic Interests, Why Race Matters, The Culture of Critique, The Occidental Quarterly, 20 years of American Renaissance, etc), not to mention a proliferating number of race realist websites, from the more intellectual, like MR, to the more plebeian, like Stormfront.

What is needed is a work of scholarship which can act as a movement unifier, or at least ideological baseline which can then serve as the foundation for a political program, and activist agenda. Think of the American conservatives. For decades (perhaps even now), if one wished to know what a conservative was, the intellectual could be pointed to The Conservative Mind, the common man to Up From Liberalism or maybe The Conscience of a Conservative. Kirk’s book, despite its veritable baroque eschewal of ‘ideology’, nevertheless did serve as the springboard for the creation of modern conservatism, and it did so less by offering up its own original philosophy, than by serving up digestible summaries of the thought of famous (as well as forgotten) conservatives from history, out of which various (alleged) core conservative principles could be discerned, upon which in turn a political agenda could be (and was) fashioned.

We do have one great synthetic work that I’m aware of: Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority, a magisterial tome way, way ahead of its time (pub 1972). [I hope to God everyone here has read it - if not, do so, even if the book must by now be a bit dated; my edition was from the late 80s, which meant, however, that the Cold War was still a big issue.] From what I remember of my reading of it, nearly two decades ago, it is very much focused on the racial situation in the US, however, containing long discussions of which ethnic groups were assimilable to America’s Nordic founding majority, and detailing how virtually every major institution in American life had by that time (1972!! - same year I think that The Camp of the Saints was published - another book to rank high in the estimation of any true conservative/Occidentalist/nationalist) been turned ‘anti-majoritarian’  by an unholy combination of white race traitors and minority racists.

But we need something like these books now. Or, really two things: first, a major work of nationalist political philosophy, equivalent to The Conservative Mind, one synthesizing the moral, political, and historical justifications of nationalism with the relevant findings of the modern life sciences; and second, an ideological racialist tract or manifesto detailing our grievances, goals and perhaps strategies, in language accessible to common persons. The MR community is wonderfully suited to carrying on the conversation(s) that can form the basis of at least the latter project.   

I think the site owner should start something like a separate area of the site devoted just to developing such a manifesto, perhaps located within the “Of Note” area (upper left-hand side of the screen). After, say, a year, I bet there would (or could) be a sufficient volume of responses to enable someone culling through them for optimum insights to obtain the basis for just such a tract, which in turn could constitute - who knows? one thing I’ve learned from the Jews is Think Big - the first volume from the forthcoming Majority Rights Press.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:20 | #

McTaggert asks: “Does this have any connection to the traditional myths and stories of the dragon, the fearsome and dangerous monster, and the lone, heroic knight who goes out to slay it?”

Yes.  George did not accomplish the slaying alone.  He was the leader who composed an oath to slay a particular dragon and invited others to follow him—taking the oath he uttered.  Under his leadership, they killed the dragon.

McTaggert asks: “The dragon is a mythical creature in China as well, though it’s viewed positively over there.  Does this have something to do with them being a more group-oriented culture?”

Yes, but with qualification:

McTaggert asks: “Do you think the dragon mythology in both the West and China has a common ultimate origin?”

Yes.  In earliest Chinese literature there is frequent reference to the South West as the abode of Heaven rule and the North East the abode of Dragon rule.  This corresponds roughly to the ancient racial distinction between Tocharians and the NE Asians.  There seems to have been an oscillation between Heaven rule and Dragon rule.  I suspect Heaven rule is by the “gods” where men operate more individually and Dragon rule is by groups which intercede between men and the gods.  I do not necessarily think this means that the Tocharians ever actually “ruled” the NE Asians.  It may well have simply been periods following mass warfare where carrying capacity was in excess for a time and therefore seemed to mirror more the culture of the Tocharians.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:12 | #

Fred, the degeneration of that deeply vital tradition—as vital as sex itself going back 600 million years to the first combat between males—is clear from Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation “script”:

<h2>II. The Entrance into the Church</h2> <span class=“rubric”> The Queen, as soon as she enters at the west door of the Church, is to be received with this Anthem:</span> <span class=“rubric”>Psalm 122, 1–3, 6, 7.</span>
I was glad when they said unto me:
  We will go into the house of the Lord.
Our feet shall stand in thy gates:
  O Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is built as a city:
  that is at unity in itself.
O pray for the peace of Jerusalem:

  they shall prosper that love thee.
Peace be within thy walls:
  and plenteousness within thy palaces. <span class=“rubric”> The Queen shall in the mean time pass up through the body of the Church, into and through the choir, and so up the steps to the Theatre; and having passed by her Throne, she shall make her humble adoration, and then kneeling at the faldstool set for her before her Chair of Estate on the south side of the Altar, use some short private prayers; and after, sit down in her Chair.</span> <span class=“rubric”> The Bible, Paten, and Chalice shall meanwhile be brought by the Bishops who had borne them, and placed upon the Altar.</span> <span class=“rubric”> Then the Lords who carry in procession the Regalia, except those who carry the Swords, shall come from their places and present in order every one what he carries to the Archbishop, who shall deliver them to the Dean of Westminster, to be placed by him upon the Altar.</span> <h2>III. The Recognition</h2>  <span class=“rubric”> The Archbishop, together with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Great Chamberlain, Lord High Constable, and Earl Marshal (Garter King of Arms preceding them), shall then go to the East side of the Theatre, and after shall go to the other three sides in this order, South, West, and North, and at every of the four sides the Archbishop shall with a loud voice speak to the People: and the Queen in the mean while, standing up by King Edward’s Chair, shall turn and show herself unto the People at every of the four sides of the Theatre as the Archbishop is at every of them, the Archbishop saying:</span>  Sirs, I here present unto you
Queen ELIZABETH,
your undoubted Queen:
Wherefore all you who are come this day
to do your homage and service,
Are you willing to do the same? <span class=“rubric”> The People signify their willingness and joy, by loud and repeated acclamations, all with one voice crying out, </span>  <span class=“all”>GOD SAVE QUEEN ELIZABETH.</span>

And with that theatrical mockery, mankind falls back 600 million years.

Oh, and if anyone thought lineal descent is qualification for sovereignty:  Meet the McGregors!

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:57 | #

Wotan in “The Valkyrie” by Richard Wagner:

Whoever fears the spirit of my spear can never pass through this fire.

Posted by Off Topic on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:43 | #

Totally off-topic, but there was a piece in today’s Sunday Times magazine, by David James Smith, moaning about the supposed racism of (what I believe is) Guessedworker’s manor of Lewes in Sussex.

The article is a protracted whine seemingly inspired by the fact that the author’s half-caste, sorry, mixed-raced, sorry, “dual-heritage” children are getting into trouble at school. Presumably the author could discipline them properly at home, but that probably pays less, and leaves less room for self-righteous indignation towards less unenlightened people in places like Lewes, who still say things like “half-caste”.

The article is full of the usual liberal hilarity, including the typical excuses for leaving vibrant, multicultural London. There was also a rather nasty dig at Andy ‘JohnJoyTree’ Robertson (whom the author lived next-door to for a while).

Unfortunately I cannot link thanks to the new Times pay-wall, but please Mr Guessedworker, I would like to see a critique, however shooting-fish-in-a-barrel it might be.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:26 | #

My, MY. But isn’t that a coincidence?

Posted by Off Topic on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:33 | #

PDF of David James Smith can be found here.

http://www.davidjamessmith.net/articles/

Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 01:05 | #

This sounds very similar to Plato’s proposals in The Republic.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:06 | #

Among other things, I enjoyed the serpent, viper and dragon symbology introduced by Mr. Bowery.

I’ve come to think of these as incorporations.

Posted by MLC on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:13 | #

In earliest Chinese literature there is frequent reference to the South West as the abode of Heaven rule and the North East the abode of Dragon rule.  This corresponds roughly to the ancient racial distinction between Tocharians and the NE Asians.  There seems to have been an oscillation between Heaven rule and Dragon rule.  I suspect Heaven rule is by the ?gods? where men operate more individually and Dragon rule is by groups which intercede between men and the gods.

Any connection between this “Heaven rule” and the Mandate of Heaven?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:49 | #

You’ll have to talk to Drew Frasier about “the Mandate of Heaven” and its relation to sacral kingship.  The reason I spent so much time with Prof. Frasier on the topic of sacral kingship in my interview with him was to get to the specifics of the way sacral kings were executed and replaced.

To my mind, the rules governing these decisions dominate the evolution of entire populations, so leaving them ambiguous is simply unacceptable.  That’s why I have a problem with Plato’s “philosopher king” as well as Cladrastis’s understandably incomplete specification, since he’s calling for discussion of the specifics.

For an intellectual aristocracy, it is clear that eligibility cannot be predicated on mere possession of wealth as “a measure of virtual dick-length” as one wealthy person self-servingly praised that metric when we were discussing single combat.  There is too much selection for deception and “system gaming” in wealth as “a measure of virtual dick-length”.

The question then becomes:  What kind of tests does one apply for entry to the aristocracy?  Since folks like Cladrastis see evolution toward “incorporations” (I like that term) over-powering individuals, as well incorporations over-powering other incorporations, the best I can do for them is to suggest a pseudo-eusociality for the aristocracy focused on the people, coupled with an aspect of intellectual testing that involves directly and individually relating to nature on nature’s terms for survival.

My suspicion is that there may be legitimacy to “the Mandate of Heaven” buried somewhere in the obscured past, but that its primary use has been to deflect responsibility for killing a leader from those doing the killing.

Posted by cladrastis on Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:52 | #

I should interject that JB’s political philosophy is much more fully developed (and internally consistent) than my own, and I do not necessarily think he is wrong (although I am not convinced that yeoman farming communities represent the “way forward”); he is a very gifted thinker.

There is a dialectical tension between individualist and collectivist group evolutionary strategies.  “We” are, by nature (to varying degrees, no doubt), predisposed to individualistic social organizations, but clearly this has become a losing strategy in the face of intense competition with highly collectivist peoples (who are able to hijack and reallocate positions of power within our socio-political systems).  However, the solution to this problem is not necessarily to mirror (exactly) our enemies’ strategies by evolving into a collectivist group.  There is an adaptive trade-off in doing so, which could easily result in our extinction (i.e. via the demise of the scientific process). 

It is possible that we could develop a group strategy similar to that of the slime mold (I realize this is not a particularly poetic analogy, but bear with me), in which individualism thrives under certain conditions, but in times of stress the “individuals” signal one another and form a super-organism whose behavior is more complex than the sum of its parts.  In the slime mold, such a process occurs to form propagules (not a bad idea…), but in human groups this could also work to manifest an offensive attack strategy against a more organizationally sophisticated (i.e. corporate) enemy.  I am not entirely convinced that a particular political experiment in central Europe circa 1930-1940 was not a visceral manifestation of exactly this process.