The word “duel”, in the context of my prescription for reversing civilization’s dysgenic direction, is a connotation-play.

Everyone knows the derisive connotation of “duel” as a dysgenic display of mutilated manhood wherein two men try to kill each other under conditions bearing virtually no relationship to those under which man evolved.

When I confront those using this word to smear my prescription for single combat under natural conditions, the response is to retreat into a definition of “duel” that includes any form of contest between two parties.

Very well then.  If “duel” means any form of contest between two parties, then we can discuss mass warfare as a duel between two bodies politic, can we not?

The reason Hollywood portrays single combat between two men in virtually all of its action adventure movies is because they know more about us than we know about ourselves.  We have been made to fear and loathe our own Being and Jews commodify our discontent and sell it back to us on DVD (to paraphrase Bruce Sterling).

The notion that our Being does not incorporate the valor of single combat in under natural conditions as an essential property of manhood—but is merely an invention of the movie “Dune” (as has actually been posited in these discussions)—evidences against our pursuit of Being as a remedy for Jewish domination of our myths.

Jews are happy to portray a gang of white supremacists in the Pacific Northwest putting a hapless, unarmed “citizen” into a forest while they hunt him down with guns purchased from some corporation but that’s the closest they’ll come to our Being, and they can rest assured there are plenty in “the movement” working to further this kind of fear and loathing of our own Being.

A brief note on a phenomenon central to civilization which I will call “connotation play”.

Words are crucial to polity and their abuse as weapons ensures collapse either of the genetic capacity for verbal communication (due to dysgenic selection) or the collapse of the polity.  A chief mode of word combat is to use words “loaded” with connotations—that is to say, “loaded” words.  Connotation-play consists of using a loaded word in such a way that the connotation most effective against the opponent is active, while retaining plausible deniability of that connotation in the event that the player is challenged on the connotation.  Let me give a familiar example in the word “racism”:

“You’re a RACIST!”

We’re all familiar with the connotation of the word “racist”:  “You believe your race should act collectively to enslave and/or kill other races.”  This connotation triggers the consequent:  “Therefore you, as an individual, enjoy no protection from actions against you by the government on behalf of protected races.”

If the attacker is countered by the attacked with “You mean to tell me that merely wishing to live and raise my children in an environment similar to the one in which I grew up renders me a RACIST?” the attacker has the option to retreat to, “Of course!  By construction the word ‘racist’ means someone who believes that the concept of ‘race’ has practical implications.”  From this posture, the attacker is rendered immune to all counter-accusations and can deny the connotation’s consequent, having already inflicted injury.  This unassailable position of retreat from the connotation-play is, in fact, an aspect of the connotation-play, even when such retreat is rendered unnecessary by the circumstances, such as mass-media presentation of the connotation-play.

It is, hopefully, unnecessary for this audience to be taken through the familiar connotation-plays of “diversity”, “discrimination”, “prejudice”, “xenophobia”, “anti-Semite”, “homophobic”, “tolerance”, “equality”, “democracy”, “minority”, “majority”, “supremacist”, etc.

The point here is that connotation-play is a central component of civilization’s dysgenic impact on the genetic capacity for communication hence on its own viability as a polity.

It is my strongly held opinion that W. D. Hamilton is correct in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man” when he asserts:

...civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity…

Moreover it is my strongly held opinion that it is self-evident that the meaning of life is joy of creation.  Therefore I have put forth one proposal to reverse civilization’s dysgenic attack on the meaning of life.

Others disagree and they might desire to come forth with critiques of my proposal, as have so many pseudonymous and anymous critics.

However, no one—and I mean NO ONE—has yet come forth with their own proposals for eugenics programs that are not reducible to a vague wish-list.

I therefore invite you to propose your operational definition of a eugenics program you see as desirable.  Please keep anything that smacks of a critique or wish-list to a minimum and, if you can, stated separately so it can be noted as a “goal” or “digression” from the primary purpose of the thread.

Wikipedia’s intro to Operational Definition is reasonable:

An operational definition defines something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. That is, one defines something in terms of the operations that count as measuring it. The term was coined by Percy Williams Bridgman and is a part of the process of Operationalization. One might use definitions that rely on operations in order to avoid the troubles associated with attempting to define things in terms of some intrinsic essence.

The operational definition seeks not “what” (essence) but “how” (operation).  Think of the opposite of the 3-wishes myth—the 3-wishes myth which allows the genie or leprechaun or whatever granting the wish to fulfill the wish in undesirable ways not anticipated by the wisher.

by I. Bismuth

December 27: This evening, despite my pleas for a little quiet Scrabble, Rose treated herself to yet another orchestral concert. Lying on the sofa, legs comfortably crossed at the ankles, hands palms downward at her sides, eyes shut, and chin pointing to heaven, she was a soundbather. And as she received her ear-tanning, I was jealous of a periwigged composer. She was in his company, not mine. I was intruding. Here was a scene for two, and I was some poor devil at a keyhole. Once the last movement had finished with her, though she opened her eyes at me, her smile was for my rival in the machine.

But young old Mozart finds she is hard to please. The music lover is a greedy lover. The brief life of her illicit composer makes her peevish. She reproaches him with having breathed his last long before his inspiration was feeling even slightly run-down. The filling to capacity of Köchel’s catalogue is not enough for her. Only up to K626? No further? If he had employed better time management techniques to his last twenty-four hours on earth he could have dashed off a couple of divertimenti between death rattles. He had disappointed her.

No, even worse—his early departure was criminally inartistic, a kind of burglary. He is a note-thief who sneaked past her too young to his grave, his brain stuffed like a pocket with her rightful musical pleasure.

December 28: Though Rose turned me down yet again and I was expecting no triple word scores this evening either, I was in for a surprise.

She was still on the sofa, but her infidelity differed in three ways from yesterday’s: the concert was televised, and the untimely dier was not periwigged but bespectacled (Schubert was deputizing for Mozart). The third difference was that I came to see my misgivings about her relationship with music not as discreditably personal and motivated by resentment at her canoodling with the spectral masters of sonata form, but as socially responsible and motivated by the moral imperative of stamping out all traces of racism, wherever they may be found. Let me explain how I found them in the insolent beauty of a symphony.

The symphony in question was Schubert’s in C major, nicknamed “Great” for the benefit of the tin-eared.

READ MORE...

Apologies for the Anglo-centric slant.  As ever.

So, then, in no particular order ...

WINNERS

Geert Wilders
... whose PVV increased its number of seats in the Dutch House of Representatives from nine in 2006 to twenty-two this year, taking third place, actively participating in the subsequent negotiations - and therefore policy considerations - for a government to be put in place.

The anarchist left
Out of nowhere, the left has demonstrated yet again that it can demonstrate.  And hack.

Right-wing talk radio
Hunter will explain, I feel sure.

Margaret Hodge and the Barking Labour Party
They may be baddies of the little screen but they are heroes to the left.

Nick Griffin
... who, by surviving (though, of course, losing in) the EHRC’s legal attack, has won the battle for political nationalism in Britain, and put himself quite beyond challenge.

Arizona
Never mind that a judge has proved that democracy does not exist in America.  The will of the people was heard.

Goldman Sachs
Parasites.  Rich parasites, though, and getting richer by the second.

Thilo Sarrazin
So, a German Establishment figure writes a best-seller about the nature of the modern age, and it changes the debate.  The power of words does not work only for those who work against us.

Swiss democracy
So, a European people is actually asked if they want minarets.  Naturally, they say no.  Jews attack.  S’all good. 

The Taliban
Notwithstanding the many unlovely aspects of these characters, there is something encouraging in the sight of a popular and, let’s face it, truly courageous refusal to submit to Western political and industrial hegemony.

English Defence League
Credit where credit is due.  They are demonised.  They are kettled.  They are growing.

LOSERS

The BNP
All the momentum of 2009 has been thrown away.  The movement has been split.  It’s a disaster.

Multiculturalism
Merkel has said it.  Cameron has said it.  The idea that multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster for the elites who promulgated it is now “out there”.  Can they replace it with integrationism, that’s the question.  They will try.

California
Because there are consequences, economic and fiscal, to race-replacing a white population with a Mexican one - consequences that the political class and the interests they serve never thought or cared about.

The Pres
One term.  Sweet.

The Euro
Germany holds the key because it will not agree to a fiscal union.  So while the present crisis may be surmountable, the next one won’t be.  And there will be a next one.

The Miliband who won
Who?

The climate change lobby
Warmist n. {warm-ist} supporter of wealth transfer tax to banking dynasties; liar, with ref to man-made global warming.

White South Africans
Will continue to lose until there is a Volkstaat or a resettlement in the mother continent, or both.

The taxpayer
Well, the taxpayer is a loser by definition.  But now the consequences of fiat money, big government and socialised banking losses have hit home, and it’s all on a different scale.

Ireland
The Tiger is not simply an endangered species, it’s a dead one until Ireland leaves the Euro club and rejoins Sterling.  Except the Irish would rather live a PIIGS life than come back into the folds of mother’s skirts.

Who did I miss?

by David Hamilton

Science is supposed be objective and free of the scientist’s values, but Franz Boaz turned Anthropology into an ideology: an ideology is a set of ideas that incorporate value judgements. In the Soviet Union everything was presented as they wished it was and not a reflection of reality. All policies were introduced ostensibly for the workers but the elites were rich and lived in exclusive areas like our elites; it explained everything in economic or material terms and other aspects of life are left out.

Ideology is reasoning from the orthodox belief rather than from empirical evidence and the subjects are slotted into it. There are two sides good and bad people like the war with The Devil in Christianity.

Boas changed the object of the racial bias in anthropology from tribes onto Europeans. He taught that theories should be treated as works in progress, until proven beyond doubt. His grounding in the natural sciences made him aware that the difference in the study of humans from geography or zoology was the study of “culture.” He did not see culture as linear progression, until it reached the level European civilisation and rejected the attendant notion that those who were behind were inferior.

Boas was the first scientist to state that the White and the Negro were fundamentally equal and he actively supported African American organizations. (1) As an anthropologist he sought to use science, including his studies of tribal peoples, to seek out and document the truth about the significance of race. It was his hope that people could learn to be tolerant of difference, and to see so-called primitives not as inferior or less developed, but as a source of diversity that had much to offer.

Researchers had noted differences in height, cranial measurements, and other physical features between Americans and people from different parts of Europe and to many this showed innate biological difference between races. Boas’s primary interest was the study of processes of change; he set out to determine whether bodily forms are also subject to processes of change. This was in his mind when he studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. The problem with that is diet: the cranials of Japanese immigrants grew bigger because of nutrition. People grow bigger now and there are fewer bandy-legged people because of less rickets.

His 1912, study on the plastic nature of the human body in response to changes in the environment has for the past 90 years been taken as evidence of cranial plasticity but never seriously examined for statistical and biological validity. By using pedigree information in Boas’ data, narrow sense heritabilities are estimated by the method of maximum likelihood. In addition, a series of tests and regression analyses are performed to determine the statistical validity of Boas’ original findings on differentiation between American and European-born children and the prolonged effect of the environment on cranial form. Results show the relatively high genetic component of the head and face diameters despite the environmental differences during development.

In 2002, anthropologists Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, claimed that differences between children born to the same parents in Europe and America were insignificant, and that there was no detectable effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. Their results contradicted Boas’s findings and showed they could not be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology.

READ MORE...

It must be five years ago that there was a rash of interest at MR about creating a political compass to process nationalist political affiliation.  It arose because the standard model, based as it is on conventional social and economic measures and, needless to say, the charming and by no means goy-hostile thoughts of Theodore Adorno and Wilhelm Reich, cannot process ethnocentric political attitudes and values.  So nationalists who take the test find most of the questions irrelevant, and the results puzzling.

For example, I’ve just taken it again and find that:

... I’m a centrist, damn it!  And that’s despite slamming in a string of strongly agree/disagree answers that should have shaken things up.  They didn’t.  My politics just don’t compute.

When we looked at the issue before there was some debate about whether we should be trying to develop a bi-axial compass like this model, a triaxial one that allowed for degrees of awakening, so conventionalists could take the test and get a relevant result, or a simple binning system.  I recall that there was already a test around that could bin nationalist sentiments, but it did not impress.

However, we never progressed beyond the first stumbling block, which was the axiality.  If authoritarian ? libertarian and social ? economic measures describe the liberal paradigm, what describes nationalism?  At least one of the measures has to accord with the reality of the human psyche (the standard compass’s authoritarian ? libertarian axis is recognised by psychologists as doing so).  I’ve argued here that the primary axis of nationalism is being ? becoming, and this seems too fundamental to human life to be anything other than correct.  It’s in metaphysics.  It’s in religion.  It’s good enough.  But that second axis!  That’s the tough one.

In the standard model it’s also the one that relates to purely political concerns: the social left ? the economic right.  Nationalist political concerns do not accord with the liberal value of endless progress.  There is, though, some valuational overlap with the social element, based on the care which flows from kinship.  But that would seem to dictate an opposite in elitism, and indeed the elitism of the aristocracy and of the imperium is an object of regular genuflection among some nationalists.  Norman Lowell, the Eurasianists and our friend Neo-Nietzsche would be pleased, I don’t doubt.  But it doesn’t sit quite right with me.

I confess, I haven’t grasped the whole picture to my own satisfaction.  I know I’m not thinking clearly enough.  Any ideas?

A founder of The Pirate Bay has proposed establishing a new root Domain Name Service.  His proposal has met with something of an uproar of support.

Since there seems to be quite an overlap between pseudo-libertarianism and netizens this may represent an opportunity to provide the pseudo-libertarians a gentle introduction to the fundamental flaw of their charismatic rabbi’s dogma.

It focuses on a problem that every netizen recognizes in the allocation of domain names and proposes a solution that, while it does not quite rub the noses of this rabbi’s disciples in their own economic excrement—it does introduce a “dangerous idea” which leads them down the slippery slope to truth.

Continued below the fold…

READ MORE...