Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 10
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.
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:29 | #
WN’s are doing their utmost to make German descended peoples feel comfortable with themselves and to unburden them of undue guilt (what, after all, does anyone alive have to do with World War Two?); all of us want for Europeans to work in cooperation and yet we remain saddled with a contingent of revisionists looking to turn around and lay guilt trips on Allied descendents, going into all sorts of largely unnecessary argumentation.
World War II is a history regarding which scarcely anyone alive can be said to have responsibility, let alone guilt, whatever the details of the case.
As such, it does not bear high relevance to our existential warrant to survive as a people. In the days of the controlled media, prior to the Internet, it could have been said to legitimately be an issue occupying a burning, central place, in a time when the motives and deaths of Europeans during, prior, and after World War II were not given sufficient voice.
But now focus on details of holocostianity become more often than not an insidious distraction, a tedious issue – a tedium that was handled and set aside deftly in a keen distinction that GW drew in the interview: the difference between the German motive to redeem the image of their people through World War Two revisionism in general and holocostianity revisionism in particular, versus the existential motive of the fourteen words. The two motives are different and not necessarily symbiotic, although it is argued (wrongly) by revisionists that they are in necessary alignment – when, in fact, holocaustianity revisionism is in conflict and largely counterproductive, particularly where given such a belabored focus.
Still, those who will not let it be in history do afford an opportunity to attend to how philosophical lines may have been better drawn so that we might avoid fratricide and our ready portrayal as ex-nihlo evil, as Jews would like to smear those of us who recognize them as a group pattern hostile to European interests in our efforts to separate from them
One question asked by Robert in Arabia brings the matter that GW would care to tease apart into high relief.
“Why on earth should anyone give a damn about any bad things that happen to Jews?”
It is a bit like asking why would anyone care about keeping Africans slaves?
It is not necessarily that we are so kind, but ought to take the other into account for our sake, for the sake of mitigating the creation of legitimate resentment and motive for revenge on the part of the other.
The master slave relationship to the other sets in motion resentment and revenge, usually on the basis of hubris and false, non-qualitative comparison – it has a tendency to escalate … and even if Hitler correctly identified Jews as other, he did not anticipate the kind of reaction that he was setting in motion by his treatment of agentive others as slaves.
I have maintained that race, as ecological systemic classification, would occupy a place between Cartesian points of transcendent universalism and the empirical point within the individual, rather mediated in hermeneutic process – this is in large agreement with tanstaafl. One difference is that I would characterize this as relative, not merely relative, but relative in a relational sense of a morality within and between groups – a large correction is due in changing to the silver rule for out-groups, as opposed the golden rule and universalism. It is not subjective as opposed to universal (subjective would be the same Cartesian starting point). Nevertheless, Tan does well to articulate how race and nation occupy the Jewish prohibited middle ground. I would say that nations would be like the necessary compartments of the ecological ship, the class or the necessary qualitative parts of the systemic body of the race, the class.
However, to say that morality has no connection what-so-ever to what lies beyond race would be Cartesian as well, and to address this point seems to me to be one of the services that GW has enlisted Neil Vodavzny to attempt to provide.
………
I don’t appreciate the reverence of Hitler – it is a massive insult to so many – he had impressive logical skills to be sure, but there were also glaring errors in his judgment and it is obvious that he could not be a figure that all Europeans could rally under – obvious that he would create conflict. Look, I might be proud that Caesar could have the ability to defeat the Gauls, another one to take part of England, but why would I boast and defend his doing that? And how could I be surprised that this would build the resentment that would one day implode upon Rome? This is not the way to build a stable environment for your people, even in regard to people you want to be separate from.
There is another extreme, that is expressed in examples of taking things too far to the objectivist side, best man for the job (or our women), that perhaps we should talk and negotiate assiduously with jews and blacks and help them carve out homelands. That’s their problem. We owe separatism to ourselves, not to any pleading, commensurate reward, equal treatment or negotiation with blacks and jews, who should not have been allowed to impose upon us and into our environs to begin with.
On the other hand, I do see something in GW’s criticism, that is that while the Nazis might have importantly identified the Jews as other, they were not unique in this recognition and their response was ill conceived. Not only regarding the Jews, but also in relation to other Europeans – not only Slavs, but witness the attitude toward the English here. As if there could be no moral reason to oppose the Nazis, as if the Nazis were not so narrowly circumscribed in their moral outlook that the only moral good was the good for the Nazis.
I have proposed the silver rule as a reasonable way of dealing with the other, it needs further refinement. I would disagree here with GW’s resolution to boil liberalism down to equality – this is what sets in motion the false comparison of master slave relation..and the bitter competition that ensues of not valuing, qualitative, ecological disbursement and incommensurate motives.
Nevertheless, I agree with GW that the Nazis position toward Jews and other Europeans was not commendable even if somehow understandable. And even as present day Germans should be unburdened of guilt, that the Nazis were not ex nihlo evil, to take the position that they were ex nihlo innocent can only spark rightful suspicion of the judgment of the theoretical progenitor.
I am really sick and tired of hearing that America and England were on the wrong side of the war. The truth is that Hitler drew the lines poorly and his philosophical underpinnings were very poor – catastrophic – predominantly responsible for leading to the ends that it did. By his own admission and in truth, the course of the war was taken through his initiative. The Allies probably should have pursued intervention in other ways but hindsight is 20/20.
The best way for Germans to handle the redemption of their honor is to point to the fact that they are a new, innocent generation, that previous generations had motives, were not acting out of a vacuum, but under great stress and inspiration counter to that stress. Matters may have been handled differently but there were pressures, threats that the Germans were responding to – over reacting you say, well probably, but there has also been an over punishment now, which is carrying on to us in the present generation as responsible for things that happened before we were born. Just or unjust, punishment has been served enough.
Before offering that argument, I would render the caveat: that while it is disingenuous to say that the Nazi regime were ex-nihlo evil, so too is it disingenuous to say that they were ex nihlo innocent, which incredibly, is the way some of their apologists speak – all that can and should do, is breed mistrust of those who attempt such purist arguments.
For those who want to debate the holocaust for the burning desire to redeem the reputation of Germany of that epoch, please forgive those of us who are not especially interested as we do have the pressing existential matter of the fourteen words to attend, and while we do not seek to burden you with guilt trips neither do we need guilt trips from you.