Captainchaos said:
“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”
Graham Lister replied:
“Very true – narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”
Tanstaafll is not the first STEM case directly obstructing the path of Xer-Correctivity that I endeavored to articulate.
In late 2012, I moved from The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network to Majorityrights, taking them up on an offer to publish, thinking that I’d have more appreciation of the White Post Modern perspective that I was cultivating.
The site appealed to me greatly not only for its audacity to breach political correctness, but because its commentariat and its posters were quite intelligent, particularly James Bowery.
What I had not yet quite articulated for myself, but could nevertheless clearly sense, was that the site’s proprietors, featured writers and commentariat, were coming from a STEM perspective and that was fine and good, but could use the complement of the conceptual tools of the humanities perspective that I was crafting for White Ethnonationalist interests in order to round out their perspective. My will in this regard was and is good, and I know what I am talking about, so I fully expected these intelligent people to appreciate my contributions and work with me to integrate them with contributions from their perspective.
That’s not what happened.
Hence the cause for this thread, Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer.
James Bowery would prove particularly illustrative in regard to this resistance and obstruction to the Xer White Post Modern corrective.
James is very much a Boomer and STEMMer. A genius computer technologist, he participated in ground-breaking efforts of computer and internet technology in stages as early as the early 80s.
James himself was keenly aware that Boomers could be problematic, observing the advantage and irresponsibility of the early Boomers to somewhat later Boomers such as himself, born in 1954. The earlier ones having bought up real estate cheap, subjected the later born to rent, thereby obstructing their family formation prospects.
As producer for The Voice of Reason Radio Network, I recognized Bowery’s prodigious talent, and its utility, with his concern having turned to social issues of necessity as it would for anyone who cares about White people. I bumped myself from an interview that Robert Stark wanted to do of me, prioritizing an an invitation to James for an interview, and hopefully participation at VoR; that participation didn’t materialize because the Voice of Reason would be allowed to go down with the Tanstaafl/ Carolyn Yeager abandonment.
I was trying to bring him to VoR noting that he was unhappy with Majorityrights, with him having said that he was insulted by its proprietor, Guessedworker (GW), for GW’s lack of appreciation for his efforts (foreshadowing my own experience of GW’s troubling personality). With the situation materializing in reverse, i.e., with myself migrating to Majorityrights, I expected my obvious good will to him and the ethnonationalist cause, along with my contributions as such, to meet with reasonable support from intelligent people like him and the others there, apparently with the same basic concerns as myself.
Thus, I was surprised and disappointed to find Bowery to be one among an entire culture hostile to me there; with him treating me like a pompous and pretentious academic ass – e.g., chiding me by imputing a Latin form of terms that I was using, “Cartesius”, “Augustinius”, “Manichius”…
But in fact, to begin with, these terms designate conceptual tools that are very important for our people to understand to sort matters out, they do not represent an effort to show off, to decorate superficial knowledge or unnecessarily obfuscate “poor logic with jargon” as Tanstaafl would say.
I explicated these terms as they are of highly relevant, general concern to our people, therefore I was totally surprised to find Bowery accusing me of using them as “insult terms” … shut up terms, almost like a liberal wanting to dismiss someone by calling them a “racist.”
In a Skype call with me, Bowery would tell me with exasperation to stop making “Modernity” an object of critique; even more emphatically, he would attempt to prohibit me from talking about and criticizing Cartesianism – “stay far away from it! You are demoralizing our people!”
Although I had in no way, shape or form intended these terms and concepts to be personal criticisms, let alone “insult terms” (in fact, I expected them to be appreciated and integrated, as I said), I would come to see why Bowery (and GW) would react in this way, as I would find that they would rather apply as criticisms of their positions.
Though Bowery isn’t the sick fuck that Guessedworker is, stricken with a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder that flares up in interface with anyone who has the nerve to have a good idea that somehow threatens his aggrieved Modernist, Boomer worldview, with his autobiography as THE hero who will foundationally resolve the theoretical divide between Modernity and “ethnic” (has to be different) nationalism – to be resolved virtually by himself, sweeping aside all history of thought except maybe half Heidegger and GW in his armchair, not just the smartest person alive, but the smartest person EVER – literally: “Aristotle simply is not relevant”, William James? One sentence read, nothing more to see – EVERYONE else is redundant and trivial), Bowery, consummate STEM Boomer that he is, overconfident in his Modernist world view as he is, with his STEM skill highly valued, yet insufficiently appreciative of the good fortune his generational position still provided, even though not the earliest Boomer, rather than appreciating the deciphering of red capes of Post Modernity to engage with me in proper application of these ideas, instead joined GW in polemic against me, in false either/oring, unnecessarily treating the conceptual tools and resource that I brought to bear as passively received and repeated, egregious Jewish wholesale, if not shallow nonsense, mutually exclusive to their efforts (a trick at the heart of GW’s gargantuan ego trip) to continue in metastasization of their Boomer cancer by using his formidable intelligence to continue to “rationalize” and apply patches to the anachronisms, vulnerabilities and failures in Modernist philosophy.
And while Bowery’s ego is large and pointed enough (last time we talked in person, he said that he could feel himself losing IQ points in the very act of talking to me), he offers more in novel insight and utility than does GW along the way of their quest to resolve their Cartesian anxiety.
So before I address the comparatively minor gaslighting/strawmanning of Bowery, let alone the ordeal with Guessedworker, I must discuss in more detail what ideas attracted me to Guessedworker’s Majorityrights in the first place – it was through my interest firstly in yet this other Boomer colleague of his, one also wielding STEM predilection, that being James Bowery. And just as it is incumbent upon me to note Bowery’s outstanding contributions to our ethnonational cause, which drew my interest in connecting with Guessedworker’s Majorityrights in the first place, it will also be incumbent upon me to discuss the excellent contributions of Guessedworker, which drew my efforts to connect with his work as well. That I will do, but first to discuss the dealings that I had with Bowery and his STEM Boomer channeling of concerns.
Regarding James Bowery’s positive contributions, a few of them are very significant:
Bowery’s most significant contribution, and this is huge, is the idea that anyone, any people, who would prohibit FREEDOM FROM association are imposing involuntary contract and as such, they are tantamount to supremacists and would-be slave masters. In the act of attempting to block the subject’s agency, they void their authority as a human agent, and may rather be treated as the force of nature they are conducting themselves as; and as such, defended with all the force and destruction necessary to stop them from this imposition.
Although I said that I would be listing his positive contributions first, I will digress for one criticism here in order to make a significant point. It is a great contribution of Post Modern thought proper, lets call it White Post Modernity, to underscore the fact that an idea does not have to be new in order to be good and important. When I mentioned that to Bowery, he recoiled in disgust, but should not have; and this provides an excellent example of this being an important relief: It does not even matter if this idea is original to Bowery, he articulated it beautifully and its responsible for bringing it, contributing its profound resource to the table.
In additional example of this application, regarding whom we choose to associative with or not, as we see fit, it says to women of our kind who would choose to go to another race and give precious resource, have children with them: You can do that, but you are not going to impose your choice, that life style, its consequences and the burden of care for you and your mixed children upon us. You must go and live with them and the consequences of their ways. If you try to impose yourself and them upon us, then you are trying to impose involuntary contract and are tantamount to a slave master and as supremacist. In that effort, you lose the distinctly human character of a moral agent and we have the right to look upon you as a dumb force of nature which cannot be dealt with otherwise but to be removed by force.
In addition, we will free criminally incarcerated members of that group heretofore under our jurisdiction to go and live with you and your children as well. They are no longer our responsibility.
If James Bowery added nothing else but this idea, he would have made a major contribution to human dignity, human and pervasive ecology.
Yet another terrific idea advanced by Bowery would be his version of Henry George’s revenue distribution based on land tax “site value”– i.e., owners of land beyond what is necessary for family formation (by his estimation at the time, 90k) would be taxed on site value (its site value would depend upon where it is, New York City, e.g., being worth more per square meter than Arizona) to provide a citizen’s dividend (a basic income, e.g., of 13K) for the rest of the population (which would not be taxed at all when they have site value below 90k, enough for family formation) while the land holders require their cooperation to not only defend the nation and the land which the excess land owner owns, but also, of course, so as to be placated enough not to attack the land owner in resentment and desperation. If the basic income is not considered to be enough by some people, they would be encouraged to go and live with a sympathetic people, congenial to helping them out to improve their standard of living. And that is likely to be a people more closely related to them genetically – again, helping to mitigate against imposition on E.G.I.
A third crucial idea advanced by Bowery would be Faucett’s idea of horizontal transmission. According to Faucett’s theory, beginning with the Jews return to Israel from Babylonian captivity, they didn’t just resume their organic relation to the land, but in the horizontal to and fro detachment from stable land relation, had begun to evolve a parasitic, niche relation to those organically related and developing with deeply caring relation to one another, the land and nation.
When the Romans conquered Israel, they scattered these niche people into Europe, exacerbating this horizontal evolution – which being in uncommitted, parasitic relation, became adept with usury, hording and consolidating of the host nation’s wealth, its barter being what they had to negotiate, rather then a vested interest in the natives and their land.
Belated realization among Europeans that Jews are consolidating the wealth of the nation resulted in their reaction too late and in such a way (pogroms, inquisition, holocaust) as to actually select for the more virulent Jews, by allowing (horizontal transmission of) the richer ones, more slippery, greasing the hands of account, to escape across the borders while the poorer, more ordinary, integrated and situated ones are culled, killed off in the course of this belated revenge. And the process of horizontal transmission continues, as the more virulent Jews move into the top niches [religion, money, academia, media, politics, law and courts, international business, organized crime, foundations and NGO’s, medical and military technology] of another nation, consolidating the host nation’s wealth and taking the nation to ruin, as they have with America.
And there is a non-violent, non-genocidal solution to this cycle in Bowery’s estimation: end the cycle of horizontal transmission by compelling Jewry be citizens and live in its own nation and develop organic, vertical transmission there, with their own people.
While there are more good ideas coming from Bowery, let me add just one more for now.
Sustainable Biosphere For Maximal Carrying Capacity At Current US Standard of Living
Sustainable Biosphere is another very neat Bowery thing:
You see in this system, water is cycled by evaporation and precipitation, generating some energy along with photobioreactors which facilitate the accelerated growth of algae on the water’s surface, the algae supplying omega 3 oil and protein of itself and feeding fish, which in turn supply that as well. Furthermore, this process reduces carbon footprint destruction by some massive percentage – 90% or something; I forget exactly what Bowery said.
Before moving on to critique of what I might call, to his additional consternation probably, reactions to Cartesian anxiety, these fantastic contributions that he’s come up with along the way must not be swept aside…
Again, If James Bowery added nothing else but these ideas, he would have made major contributions to human dignity, human and pervasive ecology
Oh, I almost forgot. Bowery helped out with Christinsanity as well … I arranged for and interview of Kenneth Humphreys and Bowery conducted the interview wonderfully. MR Interview of Kenneth Humphreys by James Bowery Concerning the Syncretic Origin of Christianity:
Another good idea that Bowery passes along, and again, it may not be very original and that doesn’t much matter, is the idea that “civilization” has made a deal with the males of our species, that it will take care of the borders of our land by group enforcement, protecting our women and children; in return individual White men are expected to not fight over women nor, of their own accord, against foreign interlopers. Big problem; the Powers that Be in “civilization” have reneged upon maintaining border control while they maintain the requirement that individual White men not fight, let alone with their natural resourcefulness. Quite the opposite, our hands are tied behind our backs with laws against “racism” and such, while interlopers are fee to have at our co-evolutionary women and children and wreak havoc.
Now, I don’t recall Bowery coming up with a particularly special resolution to this problem, but the articulation of the problem is good.
James Bowery says:
May 4, 2021 (at TOO)
The war between whites results from the centralization of social policy. It is a historic rhyme with The Thirty Years War more than 1861: Adherents to different belief systems are intermingled geographically and forced to cram their respective beliefs down each other’s throats via the central government — rendering each other mortal enemies. That such centralization favors more collectivist peoples than whites in the war for control of this malign power is an inevitable consequence of the continuation of war by other means known as “politics”.
The individual needs the ability to “vote with your feet”, which is how the Thirty Years War ended with the Treaty of Westphalia’s doctrine of Cuius regio, eius religio that originated with the Treaty of Augsburg.
A similar Treaty must be put in place once we have killed “Blob”: The superorganism that is incorporates individuals by degrading their integrity to make them its component parts serving its search for more such food.
But this new Treaty must repair a critical flaw in the doctrine of Cuius regio, eius religio that rendered the Westphalian nation state untenable:
Reallocation of territorial value when an individual votes with his feet thereby sorting proponents of social theories (religious faiths) into governments that test them.
As with any treaty, it serves to separate those who are part of a Pax from those who are to be excluded from it — and suffer the consequences. Choose the terms of the treaty wisely, and we can peel-off a sizable chunk of whites from Blob to kill it.
Land Value Tax Breakthrough in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xXNsooGv9Y
Henry George School of Social Science
On November 5th 2020, the parliament of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the second largest state in Germany, voted to implement land value tax. In this webinar co-sponsored by the Henry George School and the International Union for Land Value Taxation, tax reform campaigner and professor Dirk Loehr discusses the political process, achievements and the implementation challenges of this tax policy breakthrough.
Dr. Dirk Loehr, is a Professor of Taxation and Ecological Economics at the Trier University of Applied Sciences (Environment-Campus Birkenfeld), Germany. Dr. Loehr worked as tax adviser and lecturer for a private real estate academy (Sprengnetter Immobilienbewertung). He was also a consultant for the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) / German International Cooperation (GIZ) in developing countries.
Website:
https://www.hgsss.org/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/HGSSSNYC
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/henry.georg…
Latest offering by James Bowery in service of human and pervasive ecology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs0RpWSRj10
I’d forgotten to mention another excellent contribution by Bowery, and I will add this to the post above. That being a more elaborated version of the classic, “prisoner’s dilemma.”
In the classic prisoner’s dilemma, two parties are offered a choice to gamble on the good will of the other to divide 10 points evenly with another, such that each get 5 points; but if the other doesn’t also show good will and instead takes the ten when you’ve opted for the five, you lose out – the other gets ten and you get zero. If neither shows good will and both go for the ten, then neither get anything, both get zero.
Bowery develops this idea for a group level, to include insiders, outsiders and hypocrites – the hypocrite aspect is very interesting as it is the person who plays both insider and outsider and who can lure you into the trap of getting skunked with zero while the insiders take the ten from you.
I’ve found this to help make sense of real life circumstances that I’ve had and I have no doubt that others will as well.