My initial reaction to this statement by Bowery is with a few reservations.
1) I do not believe that loss of our distinctive individuality is the most urgent concern. In fact, I believe that accord and social accountability to our indebtedness to our species, however weak the link, especially if the link is weak because we are of a more individualistic kind, is absolutely where the emphasis needs to be in promulgating defense of European peoples; viz., we need to establish social accountability.
A eusocialization process would probably take a long time to undo the individuality of European evolution, though there are some circumstances, such as war, that might speed up that kind of evolution to destroy that part of our individual evolution responsible for many if not most of our creative accomplishments and distinctive ways. Thus, I will not go so far as to say it is not a valid concern at all. Still, I do not fear this kind of thing happening tomorrow, especially not with White women being the natural bitches that they so often are, particularly when unsocialized or socialized the wrong way (More below).
2) The concept of accountability works two ways. It can also be invoked if and when men are becoming too soft and dependent; thereupon providing means to impel them to demonstrate the courage and virtue of independence and autonomy to sustain the necessary and best attributes of the male side of sexual dichotomy. There are agentive means, within the human nature of praxis, to stave-off eusociality.
3) There is no time when an individual exists outside of relationships and it is an expression of Cartesian anxiety (an understandable reaction to “Abrahamic sophistry”, i.e. its groups and coalitions arrayed against Europeans, such that they would try to make us pay for them, in effect enslave us to them) to try to conceive of the individual by contrast to extricate himself from these alien ties, conceiving of boundaries between individuality and group relations as needing to be quite so pristine in favor of individual relation to raw nature and “god”. Moreover, European individuality will not survive (and probably not others) or not very well, without our borders and bounds; thus concern for the group bounds needs to be pre eminent even if you want to include a “contract” that cooperation on the matter of borders is contingent upon accountability to protect our individualistic evolution. Working that out has shown to be not too hard logically.
4) I believe that Bowery is operating on a natural fallacy - it showing more clearly this time than before when he suggested that females and females alone should do the selecting. I am satisfied that female predilection is not always best and needs to balanced with male predilection. However, he goes further this time to suggest that female incitement to genetic competition is necessarily a good thing, a calling upon men to tear down this civilization which props up the trajectory to loss of sexual di-morphism and eusociality.
I believe something near the opposite, that female incitement to genetic competition (when it goes beyond good will) is an atavistic upshot of their most primitive instincts emerging through exponential pandering due to the destruction of our borders and bounds. With the destruction of the bounds of our nations - “civilizations” if you will - there is more and more pandering to females from outgroups, empowering them when puerile and beyond their merit, allowing them to be comfortable at their most base, subhuman, unsublimated and unsocialized expression of our sexual di morphism. Sublimation, which this level of female incitement has no patience for in the disordered context of modernity - disordered because time-ordering classificatory boundaries are destroyed, especially by YKW weaponization (as “racism”, etc) of the Cartesian dismissal of social classifications as “egregious fiction” - reducing the context of selection more to competition in episode rather than its being sublimated and appreciated in patterned expression, where the full array of European abilities are demonstrated, including our best. But this sublimation (that is destroyed in this ‘wonderful, honorable pure naturalism’), must in fact be pre-requisite to survey, thought, creativity and innovation. If our males are to be incited, it should not be in demonstration of their individuality, or to compete for women, but to reconstruct our borders and bounds.
Personally, I am interested in hearing no White man complain that he can’t get a decent woman when the borders and bounds of our our people are wide open and his co-evolutionary women are fair game for all.
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 23 May 2020 06:25 | #
RELIGION: Every decision is an act if not leap of faith.
My initial reaction to this statement by Bowery is with a few reservations.
1) I do not believe that loss of our distinctive individuality is the most urgent concern. In fact, I believe that accord and social accountability to our indebtedness to our species, however weak the link, especially if the link is weak because we are of a more individualistic kind, is absolutely where the emphasis needs to be in promulgating defense of European peoples; viz., we need to establish social accountability.
A eusocialization process would probably take a long time to undo the individuality of European evolution, though there are some circumstances, such as war, that might speed up that kind of evolution to destroy that part of our individual evolution responsible for many if not most of our creative accomplishments and distinctive ways. Thus, I will not go so far as to say it is not a valid concern at all. Still, I do not fear this kind of thing happening tomorrow, especially not with White women being the natural bitches that they so often are, particularly when unsocialized or socialized the wrong way (More below).
2) The concept of accountability works two ways. It can also be invoked if and when men are becoming too soft and dependent; thereupon providing means to impel them to demonstrate the courage and virtue of independence and autonomy to sustain the necessary and best attributes of the male side of sexual dichotomy. There are agentive means, within the human nature of praxis, to stave-off eusociality.
3) There is no time when an individual exists outside of relationships and it is an expression of Cartesian anxiety (an understandable reaction to “Abrahamic sophistry”, i.e. its groups and coalitions arrayed against Europeans, such that they would try to make us pay for them, in effect enslave us to them) to try to conceive of the individual by contrast to extricate himself from these alien ties, conceiving of boundaries between individuality and group relations as needing to be quite so pristine in favor of individual relation to raw nature and “god”. Moreover, European individuality will not survive (and probably not others) or not very well, without our borders and bounds; thus concern for the group bounds needs to be pre eminent even if you want to include a “contract” that cooperation on the matter of borders is contingent upon accountability to protect our individualistic evolution. Working that out has shown to be not too hard logically.
4) I believe that Bowery is operating on a natural fallacy - it showing more clearly this time than before when he suggested that females and females alone should do the selecting. I am satisfied that female predilection is not always best and needs to balanced with male predilection. However, he goes further this time to suggest that female incitement to genetic competition is necessarily a good thing, a calling upon men to tear down this civilization which props up the trajectory to loss of sexual di-morphism and eusociality.
I believe something near the opposite, that female incitement to genetic competition (when it goes beyond good will) is an atavistic upshot of their most primitive instincts emerging through exponential pandering due to the destruction of our borders and bounds. With the destruction of the bounds of our nations - “civilizations” if you will - there is more and more pandering to females from outgroups, empowering them when puerile and beyond their merit, allowing them to be comfortable at their most base, subhuman, unsublimated and unsocialized expression of our sexual di morphism. Sublimation, which this level of female incitement has no patience for in the disordered context of modernity - disordered because time-ordering classificatory boundaries are destroyed, especially by YKW weaponization (as “racism”, etc) of the Cartesian dismissal of social classifications as “egregious fiction” - reducing the context of selection more to competition in episode rather than its being sublimated and appreciated in patterned expression, where the full array of European abilities are demonstrated, including our best. But this sublimation (that is destroyed in this ‘wonderful, honorable pure naturalism’), must in fact be pre-requisite to survey, thought, creativity and innovation. If our males are to be incited, it should not be in demonstration of their individuality, or to compete for women, but to reconstruct our borders and bounds.
Personally, I am interested in hearing no White man complain that he can’t get a decent woman when the borders and bounds of our our people are wide open and his co-evolutionary women are fair game for all.