|
|
|
Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society by James Bowery
INTRODUCTION
Secession is necessary to free society. Free society starts with mutual consent. Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. “Freedom From” compliments “Freedom To”.
Secession is necessary to true social science: We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments. This is true of all science. Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions. In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results. We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence.
In a free scientific society, an individual is subject to treatment only after giving informed consent.
These two pillars of social good—truth and freedom—stand upon the foundation of secession.
Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights—the sine qua non of “liberal democracy”—must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good. SLAVERY
Getting right to the point that people need addressed whenever “secession” is uttered:
Abolition of slavery is support of individual secession.
Slaves want to secede from their “owners” just as others want to—and do—secede from societies they find objectionable. The difference between slaves and others turns solely on whether the individual’s right to secede is realized. All who are denied secession are slaves: their consent is violated.
If men from Maine choose to support the right of secession of slaves by marching on South Carolina to kill unrepentant slave owners—every last one of them—those men from Maine in no way lose their own rights. Men retaining their humanity may differ over whether it is wisest to intervene in such a way – or to intervene at all. For example, should a government which is capable of raising taxes do so for the waging of war against slavery or, is it better spent on the purchase of slaves to be freed from their dependent owners? Eminent domain “taking” arguments aside, just men may, as well, differ over whether it is wisest to put down a rabid animal, or to treat it. The compromise upon which the United States was founded was flawed, perhaps fatally, by its incorporation of slave states.
This in no way supports the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution or The Union. It supports only the 13th Amendment. Despite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s pretenses to the contrary, it is still a “badge of slavery” to be forced into association with others. Likewise the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 compounded this badge of slavery born of the so-called “Civil Rights Movement”.
“Freedom From” compliments “Freedom To”. Just as a free person’s right to vote with his feet takes precedence over a State’s powers, so a body politic may leave a Federation that has overstepped its bounds.
The Federal government is a creature of its constituent States and the State is a creature of its constituent People.
The Creature is subordinate to the Creator.
Lucifer and his slavery be damned.
FREEDOM
There is no true freedom without a domain upon which men may live as they choose. The key to practical freedom is that men may choose to live among others that share their ecological beliefs. Ecological beliefs include beliefs in cause and effect on human ecologies. Note, this is more profound than merely sharing territory with those “of like mind”. Beliefs about ecological cause and effect are, by definition, at the foundation of all mutually consensual human ecologies. Indeed, such beliefs are the most general definition of religion as they inform one’s practice of life in society with others. It seems, then, that theocracy, in this general sense, is inescapably at the foundation of freedom as the consensual domain over which men exercise their beliefs.
And here we find the proper difference between State and Federal powers:
The States provide the diverse domains upon which free men may make a statement with their very lives – voluntarily sacrificing themselves to their strongly held convictions. Each State protects from contamination – free from ecological sin – a domain upon which free men exercise of their free moral agency. “Racism is sin.” “Miscegenation is sin.” “Pornography is sin.” “Hate speech is sin.” “Adultery is sin.” “Gay marriage is sin.” “Homophobia is sin.” “Alcohol is sin.” “Tobacco is sin.” “Marijuana is sin.” “Littering is sin.” “Spanking children is sin.” Such Statements define the State. The Federation’s sole legitimate job is to ensure the practicality of secession of individuals and joining together of mutually consenting individuals on their own ecological domains.
It is only in this proper relationship between the State and the Federation that man can find both peace and freedom:
Peace through nonviolent reallocation of State boundaries as well as supporting the assortative migration of peoples, and,
Freedom through globally maximized exercise of free moral agency.
It is only in making practical this sense of “secession” that a Federation may legitimately oppose, as slave-making, the so-called “secession” of territory that denies the right of its people to secede.
The horror that some people have of territorial exclusion is not only horror of true diversity and horror of learning the truth: it is horror of “freedom from” hence horror of freedom itself. It may preen one’s moral vanity to publicly display one’s emotional commitment to the dogmas of the current theocratic supremacy – State posing as Federation – but it is only with practical secession as an escape from non-consensual theocracy, that there can be true freedom.
SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY
Freedom stands in parallel with truth to uphold the ultimate social good of free scientific society: Social sciences founded on controlled experimentation conducted with informed mutual consent.
The 20th century was plagued by intellectual corruption in the social sciences – corruption universalized by making its way into liberal democratic theocracies posing as Federations. Economics, social psychology, sociology, anthropology – all of the social sciences suffer from the same intellectual handicap of all theocracies: Absence of controlled experimentation to discover causation.
It is no accident that the Protestant Reformation coincided with the emergence of the scientific method. But due to the practical difficulties of redistricting and assortative migration in the Old World, the closest the Protestant Reformation came to establishing a scientific society was the so-called “Laboratory of the States” in the frontier territories of the New World. Moreover, it is no accident that the founders of that Laboratory of the States were as much men of science as men of society. That they did not completely formalize the Laboratory of the States in terms of mutually consenting social experiments with strict border controls is a monumental loss of a historic potential that may, in part, be assigned to ignorance and, in part, to the institution of slavery.
Our present condition is very different. With the increasing world-wide understanding of the scientific method and its value in technology and engineering, we are no longer in the state of ignorance from which founders of the Laboratory of the States suffered. Moreover, with the abolition of slavery during the 1800s, the excesses of the Civil Rights movement and liberal democracy’s violation of popular consent with liberalized immigration laws in the 1900s, it is more apparent than ever that abolition of slavery and secession are united by “freedom from”.
Science, as a public activity involving publication and independent replication of results, increasingly recognizes the unity of informed consent and formal statements. Informed consent cannot exist without clear understanding of what is communicated – nor can science. If people subject themselves to social experiments with informed consent, there must be a formal Statement with which they are adequately informed. This Statement corresponds to the State into which they are entering, by mutual consent, with the current members of that State. In the pre-scientific society, the Statement may be thought of as the consensual theocracy’s scripture. In the scientific society, the Statement may be thought of as the experimental treatment to which the State’s citizens mutually, and revocably (revocation entailing emigration), consent.
As with any laboratory, cost is an important practical matter. In the present instance we must compare the cost of such a laboratory – redistricting and assortative migrations—not only to the existing cost of nearly 100 million people each decade migrating within the United States in a forlorn flight from government imposed “diversity”, but the risk of civil wars as well as the hijacking of central government by special interests. Even ignoring the fundamental violations of truth and freedom entailed by liberal democracy, the costs of rational redistricting of territory to minimize futile migrations, to minimize public sector rent seeking and to minimize lawless conflict, are small by comparison.
Beyond such gross reductions in cost, there are nuances that must be addressed which take us into the realm of value. What is of scientific value? The answer to this cannot be divorced from the question of human values. Nor can there be a better approximation of “scientific value” than the experiments in which people are willing to invest their lives. Can we assign equal value to all human lives in the optimization of our social laboratory? If we are to achieve a universally accepted principle in support of secession, it would seem so. Upon this definition of “equality” we can found a universal value for truth in which people may live and die according to their beliefs – and in which just war may be waged for freedom. This is the only way out of the Malthusian Trap. There is the possibility that by equally valuing life, unbridled reproductive success among some groups will threaten us with the Malthusian Trap anyway. But if we fail in this, there is more than the possibility or probability, but the near certainty of billions of deaths in universal chaos if not war.
There are the remaining practical questions of natural ecology upon which the boundaries of human ecologies must be founded. There are large questions such as atmospheric and water pollution, which can encircle the biosphere violating all ecologies – questions that cannot be left to the Laboratory of the States. Here epic hypocrisies abound: Those who profess the greatest concern about, say, artificial global warming, most impose, on unwilling nations, global panmixia, while those who profess the greatest conservatism toward central powers are most liberal in their interpretation of the global warming data. No current “leaders” are sufficiently conservative toward artificial global change in the sphere of human relations let alone the biosphere. Science tells us as much about what we don’t know as it does about what we know.
CONCLUSION
This essay has primarily addressed the ideology of secession and secondarily its practicality. The practice of secession as foundation of social good must be left as an exercise to the reader knowing this:
Once the ideology of secession is accepted by moral men – men with the humanity to recognize and uphold to the maximum degree practical, the free moral agency of other men – practice will follow. Not even nuclear proliferation yielding a devolution to self-defended microstates can be as powerful as a Federation of moral men who show love to their enemies, indeed the love of the sinner, by helping them find mutually consenting others with which to freely live and thereby demonstrate the consequences of their beliefs, with minimum harm to others.
In this, commitment to free moral agency and truth, is the secession from slavery to free scientific society. Comments:2
Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:54 | # There is no true freedom without a domain upon which men may live as they choose. Did the founders actually mean libertine freedom when they penned words similar to James? (the Founding Fathers) helped give birth to an ideology that is currently destroying Western Civilization. First it helped build a very successful White nation. France’s revolution was much more destructive. They were brilliant men in many regards but they were over reliant on the notion that their own personal qualities were common amongst the population. Those qualities were common at the time no? The population was more literate then, then they are now; at least in New England and amongst the Quakers. 3
Posted by Philosopher of the Right on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:09 | # An action that is performed as the result of a free choice is not known. It never occurs. Even when it appears to occur, it is generally associated with weakness of character. A strong individual has no choice; he has no alternative; he can therefore have no “freedom”. The strong man is driven to his deeds by an iron necessity. If he does anything, it is out of the fulness of his heart. His actions are akin to the overflow of a flooded basin. There is no freedom in it, no choice. It flows from an impetuous and prodigious abundance. If a strong individual goes in search of a big undertaking, in order to shoulder vast responsibilities, it is because he has a store of accumulated energy which must discharge itself over a large area. Indeed, the nature of all strength is that it gives those who possess it no choice and therefore no “freedom.” The moment “choice” enters into the equation, the moment the individual appears to be able to pick and choose which instincts, whims, and fancies he will obey or follow—at that moment, a lack of inborn impetus may be suspected. Freedom—the apparent ability to choose between different actions—belongs essentially to a lack of strength, to a lack of character, to an absence an inborn impetus in a man’s actions. To be able to weigh, consider, check, and balance between two different alternatives suggests that no overwhelming native energy forces a man to the one action and blinds or prejudices him against the other. And so the very cry for “freedom” belongs to people of weak character, and to ages of feebleness and degeneracy. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:20 | # The following is excerpted from the Signals from the Brink log entry of two-and-a-half months ago linked in The Narrator’s comment above:
Governor Morris, said to have been responsible for the language used in the final draft of the Constitution, is characterized in Wikipedia as follows:
5
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:44 | # It’s unfortunate that my essay is read as a defense of liberal democracy when it, in the introduction and repeatedly throughout, provides a deadly scientific criticism of liberal democracy. The whole point of a scientific society is that there is no secession from, no “freedom from” nature. There are ecological consequences to one’s free moral agency, and that is why separation is imperative. For those who believe that they know how to reconstitute the aristocracy, let them admit their beliefs are strongly held ecological hypotheses and cede them territory to, along with others who share their hypotheses, test and prove before the judgement of Nature, their truth. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:47 | #
That entire passage (and more besides) is why the stealth 1965 ”It’s Official: It’s Good For The Jews!” Immigration Law is null and void. That “law” never legally entered into effect because snuck through in contravention to the spirit of every single principle this republic was founded on and the Jews and Irish Catholics pushing it knew that very well.
The cost of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War to date is nearly a trillion dollars ( http://costofwar.com/ ). How many racial/ethnocultural incompatibles who are here in inappropriate numbers could that have paid to leave, at the rate of, say, a quarter of a million dollars per family or a hundred thousand per individual? Answer: lots. As for the entry’s discussion of the right to secede as a fundamental right, it was arch war criminal Abraham Lincoln who did most to damage that conception from his time to ours. That must now change. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:31 | #
I’m talking there, of course, about incompatibles who are here in inappropriate numbers legally thanks to the race-replacing bastards on the other side having let them all in deliberately, to harm the nation. Any racial/ethnocultural incompatibles who are here illegally are owed nothing, not so much as the time of day let alone any “buy-out” of their citizenship since they have none, or bribe money, or anything else. They should simply be expelled, while anyone caught hiring or housing them should also be subject to punishments. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:56 | #
Answer: figuring an amount of a trillion dollars, then ten million individual Mexicans could be paid to leave, or four million Mexican families, the latter translating into some twenty million Mexicans figuring, say, between two and four kids per Mexican family. These are legals. You’d be paying this number of incompatibles who are here legally to return home to Mexico with cash enough in their pockets to enable them to immediately retire and live like kings for life in their village of origin (provided of course the money is invested rather than squandered). Combine that with simply getting rid of — no offers, bribes, payments, or “citizenship buyouts,” just getting rid of — the twenty to forty-five million Mex illegals in this country, and you’ll have made an immense dent in the race-replacement agenda. But of course the élites would never permit anything like that, since their aim is, well, race-replacement. 9
Posted by Don on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:42 | # Narrator says, “...there is one critical flaw in its premise (and that is a flaw that was present in the Founding Father’s creation of America); and that is its over reliance on the common man…” In fact, the original founding was of the “Articles of Confederation” which you may read about at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation It was no light-weight agency of statehood—it fought the one-man rule of England, and it created the Northwest Ordinance. It negotiated peace and war. It was based on the individual states operating separately and cooperatively, which wasn’t good enough for the people who thought to upend the Articles and institute a powerful central government—remember that those founders didn’t even include a Bill of Rights—that was added in the form of amendments after the Constitution was adopted. The Articles was the agency of states created by the founders of America which was overthrown by the present Constitution. In fact, the Articles were never declared to be null & void, and the Congress created under its terms never adjourned sine die. Secession can take many forms. Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Armenians, and Mormons operate multi-level, multi-purpose quasi-governmental operations on a horizontal basis which has much to recommend itself as an appropriate model. Unfortunately, secession seems to be viewed as a vertical phenomenon requiring all the apparatus of government—immediately. In North America, we have an existing and unused structure that would serve us well as a horizontal secession vehicle. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:42 | # Secession is the way to go in the U.S., repatriation in Europe. 11
Posted by Philosopher of the Right on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:51 | # “It’s unfortunate that my essay is read as a defense of liberal democracy when it” I didn’t read your essay as a defense of liberal democracy. I criticised the notion of freedom on which much of your argument relies. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:29 | # You seem to place some sort of ultimate value on “strength”. Why? I might have the “strength” to destroy the world and I might feel confident that it is something I must do. What is of value there? 13
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:39 | #
More like a successful business. The purely economic aspirations of the Southern elite combined with the self-righteous, cult-like, mentality of the Yankee Puritans was a match made in Hell.
Had they been common then the Founding Fathers would not now be discernible from their generation. Historically, the EXTRAordinary stand out.
Your intro states,
Is that not liberal democracy? Social Democracy exists (in degrees) universally, whether there is a King or President ruling the land. But I would venture to speculate that Social Democracy is MUCH less frequent under representative Government than under a historic King. In fact when it comes to America the whole concept of secession takes a new form in that this nation has never had A People. In a true Nation (that being a tribe of people, an ethnic group, etc..) secession is an impossibility as your identity as a citizen is your blood ties to your people. As an example, you are not an Englishman because you reside in England. You are an Englishman because you are English. And only the worst of traitors would seek to sunder themselves from their family and extended family (tribe, nation). But America (to borrow a phrase from CWNY) is an anti-Nation. We are the goatee wearing evil Spock in the alternate universe. To use biblical parlance, it wasn’t “Providence” whispering in the ears of the Founding Fathers and blessing their every move, it was Old Scratch. Americans might have become A People in time if all immigration had been cut off circa 1820, but even at that our Founding Documents were anathema to the idea of there even being A People, anywhere. ... 14
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:31 | # I defined liberal democracy in the intro: Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights—the sine qua non of “liberal democracy”... What I recommend is not a vote at the ballot box as the foundation of polity, but a vote with your very self, aka “vote with your feet”, with corresponding territorial reallocation. I’m open to the alternative—the only alternative—which is war, but war must be organized on the foundation of freedom-seeking if it is to have value or valor. 15
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:52 | #
I don’t imagine a mass territorial relocation would occur minus warfare. But the question is what and who would be relocating? And to what end? To create America 2.0? Again the question of Freedom and Tyranny is more layered. We are, each of us, born into a world of obligations and responsibilities. There is no choice in that matter and no freedom from it. Genuine Freedom is the ability to follow through on the responsibilities nature has obliged us to contend with; to work, to care for our families, to marry, to start homes and have children and provide for them, to bow before our God, to acquiesce to the wisdom of our elders, to honor the memories of our ancestors and grow as old as circumstances will allow. Genuine Slavery or Oppression, on the other hand, is when we are prevented from fulfilling our natural, inborn, responsibilities, duties and obligations. This is why I’m nitpicking over the language of freedom. If our people are to survive the coming centuries then they will have to oblige themselves to personal circumstances that will resemble a cross between Victorian Era social conformity and complexity….and…. Spartan-style regimental discipline in personal obligation to their community, their people.
Our battle cry shouldn’t be, “For Freedom!”, our battle cry should be, “For Our People!”.... ... 16
Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:19 | # More like a successful business. The purely economic aspirations of the Southern elite combined with the self-righteous, cult-like, mentality of the Yankee Puritans was a match made in Hell. I concede this point. The Founding didn’t address any of the deeper questions. In fact, what could the four major groups of settlers at the time have agreed upon besides economics and libertarianism? The Quakers hated the Puritans who hated the Virginia Cavaliers who despised the lower class Scotch-Irish. Perhaps you are right, an end to immigration before the Civil War might have averted catastrophe and created a proper nation. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:30 | # Narrator writes: What we are asking of our people is to bend their knee to something greater than themselves. My proposal is that they should bend their knee only to truth, with science as our primary understanding of our own nature. Narrator writes: We are, each of us, born into a world of obligations and responsibilities. There is no choice in that matter and no freedom from it. Exactly. Which is why people will, if their minds be freed by science, come to make the choices natural—natal—born—to them. What happened during the 20th century was the take over of social science by parasites with an agenda. The result was not simply a stagnation, but a pseudo-scientific regression in our understanding of our own nature. A great many of our people’s minds are enslaved by parasites. Science is our people’s pastime for a reason: Our minds yearn to be free. That is our nature. The power and ultimate value of that pastime has now been recognized by the entire world. Unfortunately, many of our own, who would pretend to lead our own, misunderstand themselves and their own. They cannot fulfill their aspirations nor understand their own greatness. 18
Posted by Valerian on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:53 | # To James Bowery, 19
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:44 | # Encouragement to a worthy cause: JB: “What I recommend is not a vote at the ballot box as the foundation of polity, but a vote with your very self, aka “vote with your feet”, with corresponding territorial reallocation.” Yes, that is good, but people must become first, territory second. We Europeans have thousands years of territorial ruling probably first time written about in Europe by Plato in the Statesman (weaver [traditional European model] vs. shepherd [tradional Middle-eastern model]). In territorial ruling it is only a question of time when people become exchangeable commodities, if they are not exchangeable from the beginning. Then the territory loses it’s meaning. I love my people -politics is necessary foundation (communities) and larger weaving together politics is built on that. These two are not mutually exclusive. I love my people -politics doesn’t mean copying (all the aspects of) Middle-eastern shepherd model. Narrator writes: “What we are asking of our people is to bend their knee to something greater than themselves.” - Yes. JB: “My proposal is that they should bend their knee only to truth, with science as our primary understanding of our own nature.” - Truth and science can’t do anything without normative statements and structures. 1) A community or society is full of complex trade offs that can’t be decided with science, only by what is valued more. Scientific results are in itself value free (when properly done). 2) Scientific “truths” are dependent on viewpoints, on pre-selection what is studied and with what methods, and in what frames the results are interpreted. 3) Science is based on falsifiable results, so it it doesn’t always rest on solid ground. I of course advocate using science, but if JB meant that science should universally replace religion (science as a kind of religion), I disagree. There are lots of scientific support for the usefulness of religion. 20
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:37 | # Addition, the best course is to create realities on the ground that can’t be properly altered and then seek wide acceptance to them. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:59 | # As I said in the essay, the proper place for religion is in the state: territory over which the a set of ecological beliefs rule. People bow their knee to the truth, first as faith in their religion and second as the evidenced by publication of results allow within the federation. The scientific society allows comparison of religions in scientific terms. Some Christians may be more comfortable if this is put in Biblical terms: By their fruits ye shall know them. Of course, nothing can replace faith. We live in an uncertain world. We can only demand that faith occupy its proper place in the scientific society: In the State—in the Experiment. 22
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:44 | # JB: “The scientific society allows comparison of religions in scientific terms.” - Ok with me. I just remind that although Christianity has unalterable basic principles, many aspects of it can be modified with interpretation, thus improving it with information and feedback as is necessary. From the beginning it was said that Christianity was relayed from God through imperfect humans, thus it is not literal God’s word. 23
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:15 | # Also I would like to point out that in many respects religions contain the ultimate scientific information. This is because their principles have been tested with whole populations through millenniums, and in and against widely varying conditions and oppositions. Only handful religions of the countless religions have survived to became major religions. Scientific experiments concerning human groups are small, fleeting and mild compared to this indeed, although they too contain useful information. Smart people study carefully the evolutionary usefulness of religions, e.g (I don’t advocate the occasional atheism in these): David Sloan Wilson; Darwin’s Cathedral. Richard Sosis, Joseph Bulbulia, et al.; The Evolution of Religion. Scott Atran; In Gods’ We Trust. Rick Goldberg: Judaism in Biological Perspective. An old book: Emile Durkheim; Elementary Forms of Religion. 24
Posted by Wandering Internet Commentator on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:27 | # Out of curiosity, Mr. Bowery, if you would forgive me for asking, would you consider yourself to be a person of faith, i.e within the Christian tradition, or within any other faith, i.e some form of Nordic Paganism or something similar? Please forgive my ignorance and intrusiveness, as I found this article of yours to be well-written and interesting, and thought that your religious perspective might help to inform mine on the relationship of various religious beliefs to ‘free’ societies as you describe. 25
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:10 | # Understanding that “person of faith” is really redundant, since we all hold beliefs and act without complete information, the best approximation of my Statement is given in Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals by “the old man” of the Valoric Society. I suppose you could call it a Nordic Pagan group. Unfortunately, these folks seem to have gone completely underground sometime prior December 2001 when I received a communique from the publisher in response to my letter to them asking for some information regarding the practical establishment of such a human ecology. Despite my differences with them (I think gene flow supported by governments is a bad basis for founding a new hybridized consanguinous breeding direction while they seem to believe hybridization is of paramount importance) the original intent of “the old man”, to me, seems most likely to effect my Safety and Happiness. I can live with their version of “panmixia” because it at least allows me to challenge an “immigrant” male to formal combat to the death under natural law. There would have to be a couple of modifications to the 7 points to allow individuals to choose exile (expulsion from the human ecology) over death or formal combat to the death. The most extreme modification would probably have to be allowing a man who has already entered formal combat with another, the option to choose expulsion. 26
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:49 | # One additional disagreement with Scott Atran et al. He doesn’t believe in group evolution, either because of incorrect logic or liberal dishonesty. Wilson’s view is closer to the truth, but he weights too little genes and too much culture in group evolution. Both are important in it. Small corrections: Scott Atran, In Gods We Trust and Emile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life. James, if there is panmixia, i.e. lawlesness, one should ask first how any system in it can be exploited. Old European style formal combat is based on many honor laws and mutual understandings, mostly unwritten. These are the first things that will fly out of the window in case of panmixia lawlesness. E.g. community can hire contract killers to challenge and kill as many as possible of the rival community’s intellectuals, who have generally not specialized in combat. Only defenses can be structured at the level of communities. If you kill one member of our community, there will be eternal revenge against your community until the death has been revenged. If you continue, the revenge will be multiplied and perhaps a war will start. This will create deterrent and some stability. 27
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:17 | # a Finn writes: if there is panmixia, i.e. lawlesness I suggest you not get bogged down in arguing theology with me—particularly if you can’t be bothered with reading a statement of faith as short as the 7 points of agreement between individuals. Keep in mind: The entire point of secession as the foundation of freedom is to make it so you and I do not have to fight, nor even argue over our differing beliefs—conflict is reduced to its most elemental feature: Allocation of territory to peoples for their self-determination. Deny peaceful resolution of that via formal secession and the only thing you get is war. If war is what you want, you can have it by simply supporting argument, as opposed to experiment, as the appeal of last resort in dispute resolution. 28
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:37 | # JB: “If war is what you want, you can have it by simply supporting argument, as the appeal of last resort in dispute resolution.” - James, in case of secession, your community/ society can of course use those rules, I am not denying that possibility. I also understand your concern about words as weapons/ pheromones. But there are almost as many ways of abusing challenge combat and breaking it’s rules as there are pheromone speeches. Also there are other, more effective ways to counter pheromone speech than challenge combat. Let there be separate territories/ societies to our communities and science can be used as a measuring device of our failures and successes. Wasn’t that the real foundation of your idea? 29
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:50 | # a Finn writes: Let there be separate territories/ societies to our communities and science can be used as a measuring device of our failures and successes. Yes. You and I appear to have different ideas of what will succeed for us. I say “appear” because you offer up no alternatives and may, as far as you have expressed yourself, therefore see the 7 points of agreement between individuals as the best that can be done in the real world. How are we to know otherwise when you will not put your own, similarly concise, Statement of Faith up for all to see? In all likelihood, however, you and I must separate into different human ecologies expressing differing faiths/theories and let the results speak for themselves at the level of the Federation. 30
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:10 | # JB, your criticism is fair, but there are two reasons I don’t write a concise statement: 1) Communities are extremely complex entities, it can’t be concentrated into a short statement. Any one topic of community, e.g. punishments, sex, child upbringing, marriage, use of pleasures, private evironment, social/ public environment etc. etc. are huge topics. 2) At this point I don’t try to persuade you to my community views (Realistically of course you are in the US and I am here in Finland, so we will be quite naturally in different communities. This in itself, of course, doesn’t prevent or should prevent persuasion and discussion in this matter). I would say that you are quite typical intelligent European person, who is confronted and understands tribalising reality. At this point you are trying to solve this Gordion knot with one big slash of the sword, and unfortunately it can’t be done. My present humble criticism is not enough itself to “convert” you, but it might be enough to start the search for additional information. “In all likelihood, however, you and I must separate into different human ecologies expressing differing faiths/theories and let the results speak for themselves at the level of the Federation.” - Yes, that would be the ideal solution. In addition, science can’t decide the absolute winner, because many community related things are trade-offs (e.g. number of children and maximum money acquisition) and values decide the weighting of different qualities, but science can point to certain directions. Also, if a community is successful it doesn’t mean that their good methods can be used without transformations successfully at the level of society/ state. They follow different laws. 31
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:48 | # Well, unfortunately, my acceptance of “Wandering Internet Commentator”‘s question about my particular preferences in State has allowed you to conflate my personal preferences for my State’s beliefs with my essay’s universal appeal for a Federation founded on the principle of secession. This is exemplified, in statements of yours such as: I would say that you are quite typical intelligent European person, who is confronted and understands tribalising reality. At this point you are trying to solve this Gordion knot with one big slash of the sword, and unfortunately it can’t be done. My present humble criticism is not enough itself to “convert” you, but it might be enough to start the search for additional information. To those trying to make sense of my responses to “a Finn” please understand the following: It is best to ignore the entire exchange—founded, as it is, on a response of mine to someone else about a topic that is tangential (ie: my personal beliefs). To the extent that people might be interested in that tangential topic (ie: my personal beliefs), it contains verbal mutilation of the 7 points of agreement between individuals committed by a Finn due to his failure to bother to read them, that I simply do not have the time or inclination to debunk, especially given the urgency of the topic of the essay: Secession as the foundation of any sort of “human rights”. My personal preference for the 7 points of agreement between individuals should be ignored if it, in any way, threatens to yet again conflate the role of State as experiment with Federation as defender of territory and ensurer of domestic tranquility. 32
Posted by Wandering Internet Commentator on Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:11 | # Thank you very much for your response, Mr. Bowery. I was just curious, as the interection of racialism/WN is something that interests me, and I found your clarification to be helpful and edifying. I apologize if I caused any misunderstandings or derailed the discussion. Thank you again for your patience. Post a comment:
Next entry: The death of Jörg Haider: accident or assassination
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:55 | #
It’s a good essay, but there is one critical flaw in its premise (and that is a flaw that was present in the Founding Father’s creation of America); and that is its over reliance on the common man.
You write,
That kind of freedom is what explains the perpetually savage state of African nations. It also is the motto of the current two generations of White Americans who don’t get too excited or upset about illegal immigration or miscegenation.
Freedom, like Free-Will, is a term and concept of debatable identification and quality.
As for Freedom From,
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the rest were all playing the part of Fletcher Christian seeking their “freedom” form the “slave-driving” Captain Bligh.
And due to America’s economic rise and the global influence that has brought, they (the Founding Fathers) helped give birth to an ideology that is currently destroying Western Civilization.
They were brilliant men in many regards but they were over reliant on the notion that their own personal qualities were common amongst the population.
They were clever thinkers, but they were lawyers and businessmen, not Old World aristocrats.
They were not Knights of the Round Table but were entrepreneurs of the boardroom. What America has devolved into was inevitable right from the moment they signed the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution itself was more like a corporate merger than anything else.
The following is a simplistic and short counter-point to your superb essay.
http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2009/04/of-kings-and-dragons.html