|
|
|
They’re Coming To Sortocracy Far Free Northwest Europe Yeoman’s Seed Land, founds every living need Land, each dream can have its place Now everywhere around the world Got a dream to take them there They’re coming to Sortocracy My country ‘tis of thee (today) (today) The Dragon Viper
Dragon: A militant gang. (as in “George the dragon slayer.”) As Viper, the Dragon Viper has not enforced US immigration laws for decades, since at least Reagan’s 1986 “reform” which promised border enforcement. Moreover, the immigration law’s stated intent has not been enforced since 1965 when the proponents of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 promised, with forked tongue, that the law would not revolutionize US demographics. Most importantly, lapses in territorial defense are not on the same order of anarchy as lapses in compliance with mere law. In nature males fight individually against males that enter their territory. Even in humans the Y-Chromosome maps show this to be the prehistory behavior. The primordial, if unspoken, contract binding men to civil behavior is that men will give up their combative behavior as individuals and, in exchange, the civil society will defend their territory as a group. When civil society forgets this primordial contract, it is in collapse, regardless of its “laws” or disregard thereof. When it does so in an era of advanced transportation technology, it is in an implosion. So the problem we face is not whether this “law” or that “law” is passed or blocked. The problem is that the government is not legitimate. At best it is a viper. The charade of passing or blocking “laws” serves merely to reinforce the illusion that the government is other than a viper, when it has clearly demonstrated that it not only has no intention of enforcing the laws on the books – laws that reflect the primordial foundation of civil society. Instead the viper holds in contempt the very foundation of civil society: Its agreement with the men over whom it claims jurisdiction., Temporary stop-gap measures to placate the insane delusions of the populace that there is some legitimacy left in the United States government, by “blocking amnesty” may be expedient, but even if successful, they not only reinforce the delusion, they miss the far more important opportunity to point out to the populace the fact that they are living in delusion. What is that opportunity? The Republican Party’s betrayal of the Nation of Settlers regarding immigration issue is that opportunity. The Republican Party, as a result of the 20th century’s immigration-driven social implosion, has become a kind of mental prison for the Nation of Settlers—the northwest European yeomen’s seed that founded the United States and settled the North American frontier at an enormous cost in blood-soaked soil. By pretending to protect their interests—interests which included principles of uncompromising opposition to slavery, of all kinds, upon which it was founded—the Republican Party’s treason has lifted the occultation on the shining beacon of truth, illuminating the ugly reality that the Nation of Settlers has not had a legitimate government for a very long time. The Nation of Settlers need only to be pointed to look at the ugly face of this Dragon Viper upon which now shines the glorious light of truth—if only they can hold their gaze upon that horror long enough to grasp the depths of their danger. And therein lies the problem: The maintenance of delusion has a powerful allies, not only in the Viper’s mass media and academia, but also in the sheer horror of an individual facing it squarely, for what hope does an individual have of slaying such a Viper as it is manifest to be no mere Viper but a Dragon Viper, even if that individual chooses martyrdom intent on rallying others with his demonstrated lone courage? Very little indeed. This is where the Declaration of War is critical: Joining together with others to slay such a Dragon requires an army of sufficient power in both mass and intelligent coordination that it can not just match, but assuredly best the coordination and power of the Dragon. This assurance must be present, for war is the dysgenic force of the Dragon manifest goal of undoing of Creation. Even when the forces of humanity are victorious war is dysgenic – and it is dysgenic in the extreme when the forces of humanity are defeated in war. If we are not to merely accelerate the Dragon’s undoing of Creation, we must have assurance of victory. Heroic courage is a virtue on the individual level when an oath to achieve the objective of the Declaration of War is upheld to the point of necessary self-sacrifice and death – but it heroic courage is a vice when reckless “leadership” leads men of integrity to, in their fidelity to their oaths, defeat in war. Clearly all that is required to declare war on a Dragon Viper is to declare one’s own freedom from it as such a declaration is a mortal threat to the Dragon Viper. This is why Sortocracy’s Compassion—osrting proponents of social theories into governments that test them—being little more than a more incisive version of the US Declaration of Independence, is a de facto declaration of just war, just as was the US Declaration of Independence. Having built the civilization upon which the Dragon Viper depends, if northwest Europe’s yeoman seed were united to fight this war, they, alone it could win by the simple expedient of taking down the civilization upon which the Dragon Viper depends and their losses would be far less than those of the zombie hoards that make up the growing body politc of the Dragon VIper. There are steps to take toward such unification—and beyond to include those sharing the love of Man as individual moral agency from around the world in all nations (in the ontology of individual integrity being a people related by consanguinity and congeniality ): Petition to Stop the Further Charade of Immigration Legislation Sign the petition put forth by Senator Ted Cruz. Writ of Mandamus to Compel Enforcement of Current Immigration Law Here is the background on the legal instrument called a “Writ of Mandamus” as utilized by those attempting to enter the country who wish to compel the executive branch to admit them under the law:
If an immigrant can use the Writ of Mandamus to compel the executive branch to admit him, why can’t citizens of the US use the Writ of Mandamus to compel the executive branch to exclude illegal immigrants? Standing seems clear enough: Citizens have a right to expect the government to defend their territory from invasion and the mere presence of an illegal immigrant on US territory is damaging in exactly the same sense as the mere presence of an unwelcome person on private property is recognized as damaging under laws against trespass. If actual monetary damages need be documented, this study on the growth in disparity of household income makes a strong case that middle class families have suffered a loss of critically needed income arising from the malfeasant administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (which which was explicitly stated by its proponents in Congressional testimony and floor speeches to not be a demographically revolutionary act) and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (which specifically called for no further dilution of the voting power of current citizenship by illegal immigration in the future):
Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, September 8-9, 2005 These monetary damages, if properly accounted according to Harvard University professor of bankruptcy law, and now Senator Elizabeth Warren, could easily amount to on the order of a million dollars per household of the baby boom generation—as the expenses not accounted for in US government inflation figures over that period, according to Dr. Warren’s study, were the large, relentless, fixed expenses required to form stable families. The additional damages that reasonably should be awarded include the loss of total fertility rate among the baby boom generation totaling in the tens of millions of children that were never born due to the economic burden placed on family formation during this critical period in US history. Petition for Redress of Grievances Arising from Violation of the Original Intent of the US Constitution TO THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES We the people of the United States who are committed to the present U.S. Constitution, recognizing that a conspiracy’s unconstitutional control over Congress has resulted in the passage of unconstitutional “laws” far too numerous to be tested in the courts, hereby state our grievances and our petition that two specific steps be taken by Congress to correct this condition. Compliance with this petition requires that these steps be taken fully, exactly, and in the order given. GRIEVANCES 1. Unconstitutional “laws” have been made by Congress and enforced by the elected, appointed and hired employees of the United States. Conspicuous among the unlawful “laws” made by officials in lawful positions are: (1) Those that enable the radio and television facet of the media-based conspiracy to restrict freedom of speech and press, and (2) those by which the Congress unlawfully gave the Federal Reserve Bank power to arbitrarily manipulate the value of money; the Federal Reserve Act violated the wording and obvious intent of the Constitution that Congress would determine the value of money by openly recorded laws. 2. The mixing of unconstitutional “laws” with constitutional laws has become so extensive and complex that countless thousands of individuals in the Government can make arbitrary decisions that may or may not be legal but are generally obeyed simply because it is impractical to contest them. Expedient action in the midst of confusion is the general practice. All semblance of government by law is fading away; the cry for law and order is the cry of those drowning in so many unconstitutional “laws” that there can be no law and order. 3. The total effect is that a media-based conspiracy, which is easily identified by its clear course of actions opposing the Constitution, has such extensive control over the “law”·makers within the U.S. Government that it has already formed a bureaucratic tyranny. It constantly creates a fertile field for the conspiracy’s continued action by pushing for still more “laws” that increase the present individual-fettering confusion. 4. The bureaucratic tyranny grows by taking money from taxpayers and using it to give power and favors to those who support the Constitution-opposing conspiracy. The great bulk of the action that must now occupy the time and efforts of the people, the courts, the Congress, and the President is fighting the conspiracy-controlled bureaucracy. That bureaucracy exists in direct violation of the constitutional provision that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES 1. Immediately remove every Federal agency other than those that would be part of a clarified Federal Government, as set forth in item 2 below, from a position where their regulations have the purported status of Federal law; and, in the same act, make provisions whereby they can gradually be removed from the necessity for funding by the Federal Government. They can be removed as parts of the Federal Government by changing them into Government corporations that can sue and be sued - but whose regulations are not “laws” that bog down legislation and law enforcement. An example of this procedure exists in the evolution of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). Provisions for removing them from the necessity for Federal funding are contained in the same example. This example is cited only to show that the procedure is workable; Congress already knows how to use it. This first step must be taken first because the numerous Federal agencies cannot be instantly abolished without precipitating chaos; but, by their very status as purported parts of the Federal Government, they create a confusion that makes any approach to the second step hopelessly complicated and therefore impossible. The purpose of this first step is to “clear the decks for action.” This first step can be totally accomplished with one vote on one bill. Anything else can only be construed as an attempt to further the confusion which enables the conspiracy to retain its unconstitutional control over the United States Government. 2. Prepare and submit for ratification an updated but basically unchanged Constitution, or amendments to the original one, that recognize radio, television, and current money that has no intrinsic value; and specifically limit the Federal Government’s parts, whose regulations are law, to those of (a) national defense, (b) regulatory control over subordinate bodies politic, and (c) protection of individuals from the United States, itself, and from subordinate bodies politics in fields clearly specified by the existing United States Constitution. Include in the updated Constitution or amendments submitted for ratification the provision that one body politic must have only one body of law—always completely contained in one document. We reject any argument that things have become too complicated for one body politic to have only one body of law contained in one document. There can be no government by law, and consequently no law-abiding citizens, unless the law is clearly stated. To satisfy the condition of clarity there must be a completely self-contained document which can be fully reproduced, widely distributed, held in the hands, and be understood by any individual over whom it claims jurisdiction. One document - and one document only - must be recognized as the supreme law of any body politic that claims legal (de jure) status. This principle incorporated into the Federal Constitution will do more than limit the Federal Government. It will serve two other essential purposes. First, it will limit all state and subordinate governments. Second, it will set a precedent among the governments of the world on which “recognition” of one government by another can be based. Therefore the action to update the Constitution should contain words that carry the following intent:
Recognizing that no other peaceful action can reclaim the United States Government from the present control by those who seek to destroy it, we petition that the above recited action be given priority over everything else. Because of the clear and present danger that now threatens our lives and our property, our sacred honor demands immediate action. Congress—and oniy Congress—has the power to remove the danger by peaceful action. We petition Congress to take the only possible peaceful action NOW. (This call to action is in “Man’s Relation to Government” by Melvin Gorham, ISBN 0-914752-16-2, Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579) Sortocracy’s Compassion The prior petition’s passage regarding the essential character of a de jure body politic is the foundation of further expansion of Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them:
The “one document” is the basis for a meeting of the minds that must exist, upon which mutual consent for occupation of shared land, enclosed by enforced borders, provides for assortation to occur, hence the compassion of Sortocracy to be realized. In declaring Sortocracy’s Compassion to be the more incisive form of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, a war is, of course, being declared against tyranny over the mind by Vipers as well as over the body by Dragons. This Declaration has every likelihood of leading to victory in the following war, for universal independence, as it will appeal not only to a vast number of humans “around the world” in the words of the song, but exclusively to “humans” in the strict definition of those who recognize and revere the sacral nature of moral agency represented by Man. This promise is the true promise that elicits positive feelings when the rhetoric of “freedom” is mendaciously spouted by Vipers through their forked tongues such as Neil Diamond. Comments:2
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:40 | # Yes Jimmy, We live in one sick-ass ethno-masochistic anti-White society. Paula Deen Makes Public Apology, Gets Fired by Food Network 4
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 04:05 | # Haller, so-called “Christianity” is a “meta-ideology” given its vast range of interpretations. If your “Christianity” denies this then its adherents are so few in number as to be a ridiculous basis for any sort of group action. 5
Posted by Euro on Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:56 | # Hey Jimbo, Off topic question for you. A while back you posted links to estimates on total private wealth in the US. The estimates I’ve seen range from $50 trillion to c. $200 trillion. Could you kindly repost those links if you happen to recall them? I don’t know a thing about the methodology used in various estimates. Care to offer any opinions on the differing estimates and the methods used to arrive at them? Thanks. All Hail Wotan!!!!! 7
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 01:05 | # Euro, its not really off topic in the sense that a dividend stream per person is one way to allocate land for Sortocracy’s various mutually-consenting human ecologies through market mechanisms—and it makes perfect sense to extract that dividend stream by taxing liquidation value of assets at land rent rates ~ MPT “risk free interest rate” ~ long-term average of short term treasury rates. But to answer your specific question about the proposal, you may have run across this post on the topic at another site that asked me to describe this political economy in detail:
8
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:50 | # The Puritans who settled in what was to become New England took only a few generations to abandon the Electist Calvinistic Christianity of their forebears and embrace the “fairer” Unitarianism which would be a stepping - stone to that desideratum of old Jesus, viz., Equality (in Degradation). 10
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:16 | # The primordial, if unspoken, contract binding men to civil behavior is that men will give up their combative behavior as individuals and, in exchange, the civil society will defend their territory as a group. That phrasing is clear to me. 11
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 05:58 | # “Christianity” is a “meta-ideology” given its vast range of interpretations.” Given the complex mixture of its texts, metaphors and interpretations, it might also be said to be an anti-meta ideology, as it may function to prohibit explicit agreements: “meta”, or “what this is about levels”, are often thought to serve the purpose of agreement, clarification and contextual orientation. That isn’t to say that “meta-ideology” cannot be used correctly as you do here. It is just that it illustrates how Christianity would be problematic in the usual function of “meta”, which is clarification. It is true that ambiguity can serve to facilitate coordination, that the lack of understanding between people can actually be beneficial at times or that some people make a form of Cockney of its ambiguity in order to confuse people and keep unwelcome, potentially destructive folks at bay - Christianity probably has been beneficial at times for these reasons. It is not wrong to call it meta-ideology in those senses, and while it may have served a prompting function as such, it would not correspond with the full, typical sense of meta-communication of invoking contextual orientation, clarification and agreement.
12
Posted by Englander on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:10 | # This is all very nice, but where is Guestworker with a meaningful post…? 13
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:59 | # Yes its all very nice to have an army of sufficient power that it can win, but where is Guessedworker with a meaningful post…? 14
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:22 | # Ontological ingredients to be formulated: Species of human Natural habitat Quality space (yielding food and shelter), distance and barriers to predation Space necessary per person, Space necessary per family Time to sexual maturity (time prior to full responsibility for border vigilance) I began thinking about these things as potential ingredients to a scientific/mathematical formula in defense of indigenous European peoples.. ...when the notion of setting the equation of miscegenation as equivalent to rape and pedophilia on a more ontological basis came to mind. These are not ordered ingredients, and just a sketchy list..
Power structure, Incentive structure, Reward structure, Genetic depth in years, Genetic depth in volume, Assimilates distance and boundary, Assimilates psychology (inefficient neural routing) Destruction of evolutionary ecology miscegenation equals rape and pedophilia
16
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:36 | # Destruction of habitat Destruction of support structures (work and leisure) Work as it provides ongoing, cumulative resource, manifestation of authentic value Leisure as it allows authentic explorative expression of European types 18
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:09 | # Those who would like to hear the foreshocks of Sortocracy from the foundation of civilization, the agricultural heartland, listen to the MP3s of the last few days of local (Not Rush Limbaugh) talk shows at WHO Radio. The Jan Mickelson Show for June 27, 2013 is particularly interesting as he asks a Jewish caller why the Jewish organizations representing Orthodox and Conservative Jews didn’t protest Joe Biden’s comments praising Hollywood Jews as antisemitic? PS: I rarely listen to these shows but I happened to be driving across Iowa, ultimately to a Liberty Iowa event featuring Ben Swann and some speeches by legislators basically claiming that it was time to invoke the clause of the Declaration of Independence by formally declaring withdrawal of consent of the governed. 19
Posted by Chris on Sat, 29 Jun 2013 23:30 | #
Are you sure the agricultural heartland hasn’t been corrupted like the rest of the country? http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/21/anal-hazing-is-apparently-a-thing-in-american-high-schools-now/
20
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:11 | # Of course its been corrupted. That’s the whole point. The remnant of the nation of settlers is absolutely desperate to separate from the corruption. 21
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:08 | # @Chris Don’t you know Mr. Bowery’s utopia of rural Lockean individualism is but one cleverly worded contract away? MR does very serious political debates about eusociality, dragons et al. Such views are only ignored by the wider world due to willful ideological blindness and intellectual inadequacy, yes? That the American ideology (for the hard of thinking I’m not explaining what that is yet again) and its politico-cultural forms are foundationally in error - not corrupted - is unthinkable. Very naturally I suppose for American’s not to see this (it’s the water the fish swim in) but no serious conversation can be had if the USA - in any formulation (historic, fantasy, idealised, etc.) is held up as ‘the model’ the European world should embrace. Because it’s an embrace with death. That’s ultimately the truth of the matter on the ground - the American ideology in reality rather than in fantasy. One cannot seriously think if one is held within a delusion. 22
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:35 | # Last comment did not show up so I’ll try again. And I quote: “The body politic known as the United States of America invites acceptance by the powers of the world on the basis of this comprehensive statement of its laws, and hereby declares that it will consider recognition of another body politic only if such body politic publishes a single document which it asserts to be the sole and total expression of its intents and purposes, and of its mechanics for bringing conforming pressures on all it proposes to govern. This must include all natural individuals and all fictitious entities subordinate to itself, all things or persons, real or fictitious, which it claims as its component parts. This one document must be offered to the world at large and to the governed as having supremacy over all others.” Yes OK so to be ‘legitimate’ nations European peoples must not only be pseudo-Americans in our everyday existence but also adopt American legal-political forms in all their important particulars - in finest 18th Whig mode to boot! This is the nightmare of Schmitt (his term was spaceless universalism) recapitulated in uber-banal form. Really one cannot make this shit up. And this from the ‘super’ intelligent Mr. Bowery. My the world of politics and political ideas will be shaken to its core - no doubt. Oh well never debate with idiots as they only bring people down to their own level. Obviously I’m the idiot that doesn’t ‘get’ the timeless genius of John Locke and the Founding Fathers etc. Then again implicitly communitarian European natives aren’t really ‘natural individuals’ - in all our conceptually ‘thick’ notions of collectivism, blood, organic nationhood, rootedness, etc. In short our autochthonous status (from which we are alienated - to be sure - but which still lurks in the background) is but the flip side, sadly, to our proto-eusociality - our inadequacy as genuine ‘individuals’. Only Americans qualify on that score. At least in the fantasy world of Mr. Bowery. The fact that Lockean philosophical anthropology - the picture it paints of humanity - is deeply and radically inadequate is not the issue. Anyone that cares to look can see that no person (individualist or mere eusocial ‘ant’) has ever, in reality corresponded with the Lockean picture and its implicit, quite fantastical ontology. However, that does NOT mean its deeply distorting view isn’t taken up by people as their ‘own’ - with real-world ‘meta-political’ consequences over both the short, medium and longer term. The psychological reasons why the delusions of liberal ontology are so appealing have been discussed in some detail before and again I will not repeat them. Most of psychological economy of liberalism is very obvious for those with the inclination to see the emotional banalities on offer. “You’re self-made and self-making, all-powerful, anything is therefore possible, no limits exist” and the ego loves to be caressed - especially American egos it would seem. Dependency is an ideologically toxic word in American political life. It suggests limits to the all-powerful individual, forms of systematic personal inadequacies even. The need for others in order to live and fully flourish. I’m happy to admit I’m NOT the all-powerful ‘self-made’ Lockean subject. Yes I am dependent upon society, and its collective history. I’m dependent for my life, biologically and culturally, personally and politically on others, on an individual and collective bio-cultural inheritance. Call me an inadequate ‘eusocial’ pseudo-human but there you go. At least I can acknowledge that I owe differential politico-moral commitments to particular persons, peoples, and places - NOT abstract ideas about individual freedom etc. And on that foundational difference there can be no reconciliation whatsoever with ideological ‘Americans’ and their implicitly ‘deterritorializing’ socio-political ontologies. “Individuals good, groups bad, individuals good, groups bad m’kay” to ape the animals from ‘Animal Farm’. Jesus wept as the saying goes. I think much of the extreme and grotesque mental contusions that American perform to defend some version of the US Constitution is precisely because its so ill-conceived. A politico-social experiment in a social-order in which ‘individual liberty’ in all things is the highest and most treasured value was doomed to implosion over the longer term. Why? Because the reality of all social forms, all societies is that they are collective phenomena. All of them need a balance (a balance that naturally shifts in content and form but not structurally) between the whole and the parts, the collective and the individual if they are to flourish and be stable. Fucking read Aristotle, fucking read about hierarchical selection theory, fucking read about evolutionary game-theory and the problem of ‘free-riding’, fucking read about emergent properties and downward causation etc. Fucking read Bhaskar’s early work on ontological stratification, fucking read Simondon on transpersonal individuation etc. Hegel, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser on various ideas of the individual as being inescapably already situated WITHIN a collective history. If ideologically ‘collectivism’ (in any form whatsoever) is deemed toxic then the ideological field is left open to only the ontologies of the ‘individual’ – a radically reductionist ontology which profoundly colours the idioms of political life, shapes its ‘deep grammar’, produces and polices the contours of the political imagination, and perhaps more importantly prevents any corrective moves back towards recognising the important of collective, or communitarian political values/forms. The ontological reality of groups is denied in such a system. After all “there’s no such thing as society only individuals” – this is an ontological statement that the social-order is reducible to individuals and is not an ontological stratified or emergent phenomena. Society (or groups/groupishness) is merely an epiphenomenal illusion. I don’t believe that for both good political reasons and I think good scientific and good philosophical ones too. It doesn’t match up to physical and social realities. Reduction, like turtles, doesn’t go all the way down. In short ‘ideological Americans’ should read something other than yet more variations on the theme of the American ideology – the foundational all-important wonders of individualism. It’s not hard, the material for a non-American outlook exists in the world. No-one is stopping you from looking at it except your own imaginative and intellectual blinkers. Just what’s so compelling in tired 18th century liberal ideas? Mr. Bowery’s efforts in this regard are worst that useless. Again what is the fucking point of constantly having to repeat such elementary insights? It’s an enormous waste of time and effort. If people want to start from the point that the American way of life has not been (and is not) ‘corrupted’ in any serious use of that term - but rather was conceptually and ontologically flawed from the get-go (founded on half-truths at best) then we might start to have a useful discussion. Otherwise the debate is little more sub-intelligent masturbation about the ‘timeless wisdom’ of the Founding Fathers. Oh it’s Madison and his buddies let’s all have a circle jerk in their honour. Oh look all the brasso has all come out of my willy wanky woo.
23
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:31 | # Excellent comments, Graham. I can and do take for granted that The American way and its Constitution are deeply flawed, particularly as they set the individual as prior and more important than the organic social system. It was susceptible and liable to the outcomes that be, if destined as such. It is also true that it was in fact, corrupted still further (especially by that one group, the group that you don’t want me to name on penalty of being accused of being one who is promoting a new Alex Jones or David Icke type single cause conspiracy angle, or worst of all, on pain of being accused of being an American, deep down). Lockeatine rights are a technology, a Cartesian technology, that did technically provide for freedom of and therefore from association. Nevertheless, it is true that The Brown vs. Board of Education decision, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and The Rumsford Fair Housing Act, (all contrived by Jewish interests) corrupted the notion of rights still further by denying Whites freedom from association. It is not inaccurate therefore, to characterize the likes of Earl Warren as both a “dupe” to the machinations of Jewish interests, (and big money/power interests) and one who is susceptible as such for the blindered ambition of his deeply flawed principles - both.
My position therefore, is in appreciative agreement of your argument that The American way, as set forth by the Constitution, is deeply flawed, radically flawed from the get go. However, despite those naive and disingenuous premises, it is not inaccurate to say that it is a rule structure that can and has been abused still further by groups taking for granted their own collective interests in exploitation of its susceptibility as an idealization of individual liberty. * That is to say, it is not only a technology that victimizes people who are not technically a part of its political structure, but a technology that leaves people very vulnerable who are civilly beholden thus; hence, it is not wrong to discuss that vulnerability, the way hostile groups act against people beholden to that phony rule structure, in order to illustrate its deep flaws and how they are susceptible if not destined to the consequences of this further corruption. With that, hopefully show people how it is that this Scottish derived empirical individualism is dangerous to all who might blindly adopt it - including Americans. That they should, in fact, take advice such as yours, and think of new ways of organizing themselves in their full, organic interests, in the ongoing of their social capital, as you say. then we might start to have a useful discussion. I hope we might continue, yes.
Now, perhaps to get the point across that that conscious judgment might be used to effect benign and amicable coordination of group interests, along with ones that do not violate the benign aspects of the epiphenomenon of individuality. Jim is not without moral bearing in his concern to ward-off the sort of mindless collective acts, particularly of war that took us into the two world wars.
24
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:38 | # This sentence was supposed to have the word not.
25
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:41 | # This sentence had a typo, omitted word “not” It was susceptible and liable to the outcomes that be, if not destined as such. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:07 | # GL conflates “body politc” with “nation”* in willful ignorance of the ontology of individual integrity**, and then proceeds to revel in sarcastic drivel posing as critique. Bottom line: GL and DanielS refuse to state clearly their intentions because to do so would be “Lockean” or “Cartesian” or something. This is supposed to be somehow more “serious” than a clearly worded statement of intent that can serve as a declaration of war—which is to say a declaration of the state of affairs in which individual moral agency is re-asserted (ie: defining the conditions under which the state of war ends). They either don’t recognize that we are at war or they don’t recognize what is required to win. PS: I would ask that Graham Lister apply his hyper-super intellect—as proven by his derision of my merely “super” intellect—- to coming up with at least one commensurable alternative to the state apparatus I propose in “Localized Monetary System and Governance” and demonstrate he is more “leftist”, hence more virtuous, than I. **Nation: People related by consanguinity and congeniality—contrasted with Nation State which would be the body politic of a nation. **The ontology of individual integrity that I have been building is based on clearly identified features of the natural world which, of course, includes things like ecologies, including human ecologies aka societies. Continually smearing the word “individual” with centuries-old philosophical errors doesn’t advance the discourse—it is merely discourse as war. The natural individual, as sexual orgamism, existed before philosphers focused a laser designation on the word “individual” so that sophists could spew garbage at any communications using the word “individual”. 27
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:15 | # I wasn’t aware that I was unclear. I certainly was not trying to be unclear. Give me a few and I will try to render a comment that more clearly answers your contentions. 28
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:33 | # I’m putting this up as a comment in response to How am I supposed to be vague, let me count the ways. First of all, I don’t think that vagueness of itself is always pejorative. Naturally it can provide some necessary flexibility for certain functions. But I am trying to guess where I am supposed to have been not sufficiently clear or where I need to clarify the rules I would hope to invoke. Something that can serve as a declaration of war and lead to a better probability of victory..hmmm..actually, I think that I have done pretty well toward that end. To begin, freedom from association is something that I, probably as anybody who likes himself and his people, saw (beginning in the 80s), as something that was being violated and very wrongfully in the American zeitgeist (a “vague” term for all the things you darn well know for all the reasons/groups/interests that I would cite as causative of this zeitgeist). Thus, a strong invocation of this rule as valid particularly in concern of ecologically designated people and places. Bowery has sharpened the thinking on this, of course, the violation of which is something that can and should be looked upon as an act of war. That the violators are displaying an inhuman proclivity and may legitimately be looked upon as such. Coming back to the utility of ambiguity, however, it has not been my purpose to make a declaration of war at this point - now I am the one citing cart before the horse thinking and an insufficient, vague definition of who we are, at least as allies in a cause, as yet. In The Euro DNA Nation, I have attempted to set out who we are, what we care about, and to coordinate what is necessary to defend that. We are a people of indigenous European DNA evolved over the course of 41,000 years. I use this DNA map for now. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml We seek to coordinate the maintenance of these various kinds, ideally in their discreet categories, with purer forms but also recognizing kinds and places primarily outside of Europe for a higher percentage of European blends and small percentages of non-European admixture. Hence, when we say Euro DNA Nation, we are setting forth a commitment, to those people who want to preserve any or all of these kinds. Of course fighting and killing between the various kinds will be discouraged; rather solutions for their various accommodation in sovereign territories within and beyond Europe will be sought. It is not only the brute genetics of the peoples which we will seek to protect, but the option for various ways of life that they may wish, need, be inclined to manifest. Thus, various “communitarian” ways and their organicism is built in from the start…and has been. Especially in the new world, there is a distinctly European way of respecting the freedom to realize these communities, as can fit, for example, under the rubric of Bowery’s Laboratory of The States or Counties (I should think that like me, many adolescents dreamed of the option of different states having different ways of which one might choose; though I don’t like the scientific metaphor that Jim uses, its quibble I’ll not reiterate here). The idea of communities to have freedom from association to live in ways they see fit should be valid to any moral person with decency, provided laws of common ecology are respected. With those organic communitarian concerns built in from the start, sufficient agency and freedom from tyranny recognized - that they may be chosen but that thy may at once be totally necessary and not chosen at all we move on to the second great concern. The ancient human and environmental ecologies of Europe in particular. We seek to protect and defend these places as habitats for their respective, indigenous European peoples. We also seek to stake out territories for European peoples on other continents. We see it as premature, however, to declare war in that regard just yet. Rather, a meta-polical narrative and culture, if not religion must begin to take hold and be taken for granted such that people will begin to act independently even, toward its realization. We see older Europeans as particularly good for taking bolder steps as they have less to lose. Finally, we do seek to coordinate the agreement of those who wish to maintain the European types and places in their discreet, purer and somewhat mixed kinds. That, for the purpose strategic efficacy where necessary against large and potentially hostile forces; but also to fund large scale projects requiring a greater economic and cooperative basis. Regarding what would be positively required of people who wish to participate at this point I am deliberately vague as I want to avoid a kind of treaty situation that sucks nation after nation into obligations of war as was apparently the case of World War One. For now, I will say that an overwhelming predominance of European DNA is required; that one does not bring offspring or others outside the race to bear upon European people and resource (we will add place once we are able to more clearly agree to which and assert that). That one will respect the European kind in its effort to persist as a species, but also in the discreet subspecies of Europeans (and again, places when it is opportune to be more clear bout those places). 29
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:55 | # Posted by Thorn on June 29, 2013, 09:46 AM | # “These guys know how to do it right” Yeah, right, these guns are going to be aimed at Catholic Europeans and anybody not stupid enough to believe in the orthodox form of that crap.
30
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:26 | # ‘GL and DanielS refuse to state clearly their intentions because to do so would be “Lockean” or “Cartesian” or something.’ Speaking for myself, I can say that’s not true. 31
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 01:32 | #
Thus speaketh Rabbi Daniel. 32
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:06 | # DanielS, the practical usage of the words “Lockean” and “Cartesian” here at MR has been such that I see absolutely no distinction between the meaning of those terms in practice and that of two individuals coming to any sort of agreement. Consent, it would seem—hell, even communication—is an obscenity to be avoided lest the inevitable consequence be Amerikwa as we know it. 33
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 08:41 | # No, there is a big difference. Because the Lockeatine, Cartesian sense of individuals coming to agreement has the capacity, if not propensity, to cut-off and ignore parts of the process that go into its very making, capacity for making, sustenance and protection: life span (including relation with parents and grandparents), evolution and systemic relation. It is also necessary to distinguish some between Graham and I. Graham has a rather knee-jerk reaction to talk of individualism, freedom and any phrasings that smacks of the American Constitution. If you’ll note, I always try to take into account the importance of the individual and individual agency. I appreciate many of your finer points regarding the significance of individual sovereignty Though the epiphenomenon of large individual self sufficiency is a distinguishing European attribute to be protected, there are these processes and co-evolutionary relationships which make up the far greater part of who we are (largely unconscious, as GW would note, and largely unchoosable as Graham would note), in life-span and evolution, which are social - nobody is born or evolved in isolation. I realize that you take these things into account, but of a language that is a bit rigid and prone to the sorts of inorganic dissections that can be destructive and disingenuously applied. Graham is highly articulate of the fact. I wish that he could be a little less hostile and disrespectful to America/Americans, but I do understand his frustration with placing a vast concern for sheer individuality as a priority, at this point, when we need so desperately to cooperate as European peoples, toward our defense and protection. I think you are a bit too worried about the absorption of a particular kind and too suspicious of our wish that this kind may flourish. The respect for various communitarian ways should accommodate the kind of your priority. It is like those who are given to shrill reaction to the word social, or socialism. Well, we are concerned for our group(s) of people (even if as a group characterized by its excellence in individuality), and that is social. It should be distinguished from the Jewish communist manifestations of the term, with its economic collectivization of property, totalitarian and genocidal (of Europeans) ways. You have ways of handling all of these things. It is just that some of your language is loaded with anachronistic technology that can and has been disingenuously applied - to the detriment of its own practitioners even, ultimately. I still do not see yours and Graham’s positions as irreconcilable. And I see both of you as very important. If a civil dialogue were to be agreed upon, and it could facilitate a more productive effort, I think that Graham might be called upon as somewhat more to blame in using insulting terms (I’m one to talk, I know). Though being as smart as you are and being a little tyrannical in almost exclusive concern about certain highly individualistic and technologically disposed sorts of Europeans, I can see why Graham uses the force of his erudition, with mustard, against your language as it can disingenuously serve a destructive American hegemony, its corporate, Jewish and military leaders, as backed by a populace which has a large enough percentage of dumb, intractable right-wingers - people who will allow ancient human ecologies to be destroyed for their Lockeatine Constitution, their universal religion which transcends European interests, their might-makes-right scientism.. 34
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:24 | # On points of ultimate value it makes absolutely no sense to compromise, no matter how sensibilities might be ruffled. I do not place ultimate value on genetic relatedness, but on joy of creation. If this makes it impossible for certain people to communicate in a civil* manner with me, then so be it. If there were accurate and concise words that would not ruffle these sensibilities, then I’d be happy to us them. However, there is so much in the tradition of upholding the “individual” against the “group” that is not only valuable, but uniquely valuable in Euroman, that for me to compromise on this point would be to serve groups that are enemies of Euroman—Euroman both as vanguard of creation and as viable temporary group organism responding to these enemies (effectively arming Euromen for war), and I refuse to so-serve the enemies of Joy of Creation. Germany’s defeat in WW II should be adequate warning to those who would attempt a mirror image of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy for defending Euroman’s genetic interests. *the word “civil” in this sense means that the communication does not constitute what has been called in courts of law “fighting words”—that is to say, communication that abuses the protections of civilization against natural duel and thereby discredits civilization as a social order. 35
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:25 | # You’ve made a great point that civilization proposes that individual males forgo brute competition and violence on the condition that they will agree to its rule structures, including the delegation of responsibility for defending the borders of the population to provisional and designated troops. I believe that your angle on this is radical in a good way. The obligation to defend the borders has been violated and even reversed. Men need license or cultural rule structures which allow them to defend the borders and their co-evolution outside of the official sanction, especially as it has been violated. However, when you say that you place ultimate value on the joys of creation, I am less hesitant to characterize that as Cartesian. It is as if that joyful experience comes out of vacuum or the kiss of god, and not from relationships - relationships where that creativity is dormant, where that creativity is in the process of being cultivated, as in parts of the lifespan; relationships where the contribution to creativity may be somewhat hidden within the systemic, ecological relationships of evolution - they may well have symbiotic properties in fostering that very creativity. I now see the importance that you place on duels as a motion to the liberation of rule structures for White men to take individual initiative against those who would violate their co-evolution. I can agree with that as a very important difference. Very good. But I do see European genetics in terms of groups, with systemic interrelation; not knowing for sure which is valuable and which is not, in every case, the bias ought to be toward innocent until proven guilty provided that one is basically engaged in fight or flight on behalf of Whites; at least for now, though it can stand further refinement. I believe that each European kind, ideally, should be able to maintain its distinct kind in 97% within its evolutionary habitat. The three percent of foreigners should probably come from neighboring European countries. Lands should be designated outside of Europe for other combinations and experiments. Different communitarian ways can be accommodated within Europe as well. Some of the conflict between Graham and you probably has to do with the fact that you are concerned with dealing with issues that Americans are confronted with and those things don’t always correspond well to the needs of Europe and Scotland; can in fact, invoke some of the things that have wreaked havoc. However, I don’t believe that you are advocating Scotland not being for the Scottish or them not being able to defend their organic communitarian ways against American liberalism. You are using some liberal ideas in defense against a liberal system. I believe I understand you perfectly there. You are not trying to interrupt ancient ecologies of Europe and promote the liberal integration of aliens, nor to encourage people to be irresponsible to their heritage. You are making the best of what the new world allows for in distinctly European expressions outside of Europe; where the grounds, the warrant of defense is more contractual, not having the ancient history of European place to fall back on. I don’t see these projects as mutually exclusive but projects which can help each other. I think your Sortocracy piece is excellent and that the localized monetary system is a good one too. It seems to me, nevertheless, that we might be talking in terms of sorting proposed groups for people to claim to be a part of, to take responsibility for and to be concerned with. 36
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:44 | # I believe that fight or flight on behalf of Whites and or particular White groups establishes a basic innocence at this point, meriting consideration for participation in the creative process; providing these people are not a burden or impinging upon the creative process of others, of course. But it seems we have a privileged responsibility to the evolution and processes of our ancient European heritage that only the hypotheses of group classifications can hope to comprehend. 37
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:52 | # DanielS writes:
The phrase “Joy of Creation” is very carefully chosen to have 2 meanings: Passive and Active. Passive: Joy of Creation is the joy of Being In Creation. This is the feminine aspect of Joy of Creation. Active: Joy of Creation is the Joy of Acts of Creation. This is the masculine aspect of Joy of Creation. Being and Action correspond to the “axes” of sexuality and if you would like to call this “Cartesian” in that sense, then, yes, I am being “Cartesian”—although I would emphasize that there is no such thing as a pure male and a pure female since each possesses as recessive the essence of the other sex. Clearly the masculine is less involved, than is the feminine, with experiencing the Joy of Creation in the sense you describe which is essentially passive. 38
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:14 | # OK, well I guess that what I have been characterizing as Cartesian in your view is what appears to be a stressed emphasis, almost singularly, upon the importance of freedom and individuality. These are certainly important values, but to the extent that they are decontextualized from group systemic process it reminds me of the sort of desperation that I felt in America. To reach beyond its insanity. I have lived in both America and Europe. America is much harder for its absence of backing on the most radical, fundamental levels. It can lead one to strain after solutions. It is that reach beyond satisfaction with normal (necessary, when considering what is “normal” in America) social relations, that takes on an appearance of Cartesian truncations of process, as I see it.
39
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:38 | # The true insanity is the misdiagnosis of our problems as “Cartesian” or “Lockean” when they are in fact, extended phenotypic. You have the wrong intellectual tools. What they need is authentic individualism, and more of it. Neither you nor Graham Lister offer them that with your centuries-old philosophical debates that have been rendered not just obsolete, but obstructionist, by advances in the natural sciences. When interacting with these things you cannot think of them as human. They are, in a very real, biological sense, demon possessed. The words out of their mouths are not those of humans. It may or may not be feasible to exorcise the demon but one thing is for damn certain: The shell occupied by the demon is expendable when the interests of authentic individuals are at stake. My demon test is very simple: Does the subject decrease the practicality of sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them? If so the subject is demon possessed. At that point one is not obligated to treat the thing as human although one may, if it be economic, try various techniques to exorcise the demon. Among these techniques might be talking with them about the “evils” of Lockean or Cartesian thought—it might be injecting them with some drug—it might be torturing them—it might be telling them bed time stories. At the point one is dealing with a force of nature, morality leaves the picture. 40
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:32 | # Well, Locke is generally considered to have represented one side of the Cartesian dichotomy. His notion of individual rights is imbued in The US Constitution. The criticism of that angle has explained much to my satisfaction; therefore, I cannot agree that it is the wrong conceptual tool. That there can be other ways of examining the problem of America, I am ready to acknowledge. Your dispute here seems to be this: that there are parasitic types who are manipulating what could be a viable process. I can and have agreed. If America’s body politic was only of one European kind they probably could make the American Constitution work, Lockeatine Cartesianism and all. Similarly as they might even make Christianity work, for all its absurdities, if they could somehow maintain a heterogeneous European population. That they could make these issues work does not mean that they are not flawed and susceptible to the parasite. However, we have a discussion, (one that involves Graham), that is neither either/or, but both and. Still, I maintain that The US Constitution and Christianity (and more) are doing a great disservice to our evolutionary processes - that we can do better without losing any of the qualities that you value or losing our individual agency to eusocial governance. It seems to me that this liberation of our ability to act and use our individual ingenuity against groups that oppress Whites, these White male abilities that should be legitimated in individual initiative and applauded for their defense of our co-evolutionaries, can be promoted in meta narratives, while they are also rules that can and should be ratified. This concern of yours connects with a significant motive for the terms of a White religious narrative so that people can draw upon it in independent acts; that also goes for The Euro DNA nation for its liberation from extant political systems and strict obligations to the rules and requirements of a particular place * - viz, one can act on behalf of our co-evolutionaries from various places under this nation - by the definition of nation that you use. This sorts of meta and para naratives, along with Sortocracy, can provide enculturation to legitimize independent initiative. In fact, that would be best of all, if acting on behalf of Whites were something that just came “naturally” * I should have been more clear to say that we want to maintain the distinct genetic groups of Europe not only in their lands, but independent of their lands as well. 41
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:53 | # The best thing that can be done to promote sortocracy within the current polity is to simply get the definition “Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.” spread around in environments where the current tropes are “States rights”, “the 10th Amendment”, “the Constitution”, “liberty”, etc. This is a situation in which the prevailing ontology is the enemy of clear thought hence rational action within the existing polity. If you want to be effective in your attack on the errors of Locke, the US Constitution, Libertarianism, the Bill of Rights, etc. then Sortocracy is the weapon of choice. Why? Because Sortocracy is not just incidentally ecological—it is essentially ecological—hence it goes for the jugular of the “individualist” fallacy and does so in a way that preserves the essential value of the moral individual as the vanguard of creation. 43
Posted by To vote with your feet on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:39 | #
44
Posted by James: The Minimalist Rules For Sortocracy on Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:52 | # The Minimalist Rules For Sortocracy
45
Posted by James' proposal for an alternative to prisons on Sat, 01 Aug 2020 05:04 | # Post a comment:
Next entry: Localized Monetary System and Governance
|
|
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 Leon Haller on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:35 | #
Jedediah Smith, the type of Christian White man who settled and built America:
Smith was a firm Christian, and great American explorer. Note his “racial ethic”. He did not seek to aggress against nonwhites, but he was racially realistic, wouldn’t tolerate their aggression, and obviously didn’t consider their lives to be of the same value as those of his own people.
Was Smith inadequate as a white man? As a Christian? Or did he strike the right balance on race, between the moral demands of Christianity, and biological realities?
I suggest Smith’s attitude and behavior were once modal among whites. We have lost that balance, but not because of Christianity. It is the ‘meta-ideology’ of liberalism that is killing us.