Superman As Heliocentric Individual

Posted by alex zeka on February 07, 2007, 03:50 PM | #

Okay, what you’re saying in crude layman’s terms (apologies if I mangle any of it) is approximately this:

The more advanced an animal, the more social it is in the sense of responding to its environment and shaping it. Some might argue from this that the most advanced animal would live in a totalitarian Hive mind like society, where everyone is controlled by everyone else and in turn controls everyone else. However, in such an arrangement, nobody would have any control of anything in practice, as having 0.0000000000000…1% ownership of something is as good as has having no ownership at all. Rather, advanced animals would create more structures which are a direct expression of their innate personality, much like a beaver building a dam. This would require a longer adolescence (=period of defining oneself), as there’s more defining to do.

Or am I just getting it entirely wrong?

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 03:56 PM | #

Yes, you are approximately right.  There are two ways this expresses in practice:

1) Males will engage in combat to advance their interests, as males do in nature already.

2) The long adolescence of the individual Superman is equivalent to what we might think of in current, near-eusocial, terms as the rise of a “civilization”.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 07, 2007, 04:25 PM | #

James,

Aren’t you supposed to be honeymooning?  Or is it honeymooning that made you think of the uebermensch and “fully sexual animals”? 

All this whatif theorizing about the far distant future is kinda interesting but I’d still like to see more practical visions and solutions.  Ya know, stuff the average Europod can use to improve himself, his family, and his community while he’s waiting for the uebertheorists to figure out a grand plan.  It would be great to hear of coordination efforts between the brains (you guys) and the brawn (the brave but slightly psychopathic street-level fighters, skins, weekend nazis, etc.).  It would be great to be able to unite the thinkers and the doers in a common cause, say, freedom for White people to gather as White people.  No criticism to your post above, I’m just wishing and hoping out loud here to fellow travelers, that’s all.

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 04:39 PM | #

Rusty, this post actually resulted from a post I just made about a very practical means of pressing the reset button on civilization.  You want me to post more extensively on the practical details of that?  Fine.  My problem is I want to put forth a positive vision before I destroy civilization as we know it.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 07, 2007, 05:02 PM | #

I’m not following you.  What do you mean reset button and “destroy civilization as we know it?”  After I understand that, perhaps I’d like to see your to-do llist on it.

Not being one for grand schemes at reorganizing mankind, I’m still stuck on thinking about practical solutions.  For example, what would a successful White organization look like?  Christian, pagan, both?  Blue-collar, white-collar?  Structured like the army, the Masons, the VFW, the Boy Scouts?  Would it be more educational, more religious, political?  I don’t want to get busy with anything, as so many politically-minded people do.  That oftens leads down blind alleys.  But I do believe that there are certain universals that couldn’t help but strengthen us, no matter what direction we are headed.

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 05:10 PM | #

Rusty, when you go get a law passed Congress and signed into law by the President—or gone out and grown some high-gain source of food like protein producing algae— as I have—then you can preach to me about “practical solutions”.

From my perspective as someone who had grown very skeptical of “the system” due to my direct and relatively successful experiences with it—I propose that from phenomena like the “Fair Housing Act” and, the Immigration Act of 1965 and similar phenomena that prevent us from exercising our freedom of association—living our hypotheses with minimum interference from and with others —it doesn’t appear to me that civilization as we know it is reformable.  Perhaps it is but the problem is the people in a position to reform it have no incentive.  Perhaps if we start to deprive them of their toy they will stop their nanny-state theocratic meddling with us.  If not, then down it goes.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 07, 2007, 05:32 PM | #

“Nous sommes du soleil”, didn’t someone as daft as a brush sing in the early seventies?

James,

Here’s a mystery of the logos, if logos may be defined as consciousness, and consciousness defined in opposition to mechanicity, and mechanicity defined as our ordinary waking state.

Does the potentiality for a highly-focussed and enhanced self-consciousness, derived through attention, really exist?  If it does exist (ie, it is not merely a product of the imagination) what evolutionary purpose can it possibly serve, given that it must serve something?

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 07, 2007, 06:01 PM | #

Preaching?  Criminy you Quakers are a sensitive, high and mighty bunch.  I’m simply wondering about things the average guy can do or design now, that’s all, while also admitting that I’m not sophisticated enough to be able to understand the relevance of many of the civilization reorg schemes and DNA talk I see on boards like this.  Relax, I’m on your side, dickhead.  No sit down and tell me about the reset button thingy.  Don’t make me come over there.

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 06:15 PM | #

GW, discussion of “will” is where this is heading isn’t it?  I’m not sure I want to dive into those philosophical waters in the present instance but I’m “willing” to do so if necessary.

We create.  Evolution may be defined in terms of such collective creation so that is where “evolutionary purpose” originates.

I don’t think any healthy human can dispute the beauty of sexuality in its natural dual form, and the transcendence of man’s consciousness of such beauty.  It is the eusocial, metrosexual drone “citizen” that thinks in terms of “the body politic” in which individuality and sexuality dissolve in primordial ooze as somehow “transcendent”.  But in such consciousness we’ve lost touch with consciuosness in the very cells of our own bodies who are specialized clones united in a transcendent purpose of expressing their shared genotype.

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 06:17 PM | #

Rusty, the question before us is this:

If you could press a button and all cities were to disappear, would you press it?  (Civilization is by definition the social organization of cities.)

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 07, 2007, 06:19 PM | #

Do you mean cities as in large towns or all complex organized habitats?  What about the people and their beliefs?

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 06:30 PM | #

Cities are different from more complex organized habitats like natural ecosystems.  The phrase “king of the jungle” is a bad metaphor constructed by the mutilated mind of civilized men.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 07, 2007, 06:39 PM | #

Yes, I agree that cities can be very dehumanizing.  I was wondering about what to do with the people though and the way that they think about things.  It seems likely to me that, were cities instantly made to disappear right now, people would have a mind to rebuild them, much the same as they were.

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 07:26 PM | #

The question isn’t whether they’d try to rebuild them but whether there would be enough breathing room thereby created to allow freedom to reestablish itself with the hard lessons learned informing the progress to individualism.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 07, 2007, 07:55 PM | #

the progress to individualism.

James, really.  You don’t believe that, do you?

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 08:01 PM | #

I guess we have differing opinions on what makes Europeans Europeans.  It is precisely this paradoxical requirement that we, as a group, defend our individualistic nature, that makes us unique and inherently vulnerable without individualism as an ideology/religion.

There is nothing inherent in individualism as in ideology/religion that precludes a belief in a strong population structure in its genetic components that need eugenic preservation and development.  The individualism that is toxic is the one foisted upon us by hypocrites to atomize us when we should be uniting to present a unified front against the hypocrites.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 07, 2007, 08:46 PM | #

But the individualism that springs from our natures is alien to the notion of progress.  The individualism that presents itself as the teleological goal of liberal politics is, of course, a misreading of another kind of maturation - something of the spirit - and that’s why progress towards it always produces nothing or worse.

Either way, progress is a false concept.

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2007, 09:10 PM | #

Creation is not a false concept.  It is how wonders come to be.  The individualism that springs from our natures is a piece of the creativity giving rise to our beings.  Our individual natures are creative.  Progress defined any other way seems boring at the least if not utterly bereft of the joy of being.

Posted by Thus Spoke Zarathustra on February 08, 2007, 11:04 AM | #

“Although I’m not a student of Nietzsche, many references to his Übermensch or Superman pervade white nationalist, particularly white supremacist, thought…”

I wonder how many of these “white nationalists” and “white supremacists” have actually read the totality of Nietzsche’s work, not only “Zarathustra” and “Genealogy of Morals”, but also: “Ecce Homo”, “Nietzsche Contra Wagner”, “Twilight of the Idols”, “Human, All-too-Human”, “The Antichrist”, and others, including his published letters?

Not many, I presume.  Otherwise, they’d be aware that Nietzsche, on balance, was extremely philosemitic, had a disdain for Germans and German culture (and attempted to postulate some Polish ancestry for himself), despised “Anti-Semites” (including his brother-in-law Forster), and even had a kind word to say about Islam in “The Antichrist.”  And, no, his “overman” was not a evolutionary, biological entity, but one of spirit, Diosynian, with Cesare Borgia being a particular Nietzsche favorite (as was Napoleon and Caeser).

Am I saying that Nietzsche was correct, and that we should be philosemitic and despise “Anti-Semites?”

No.  Nietzsche was a man of his time, the mid-late 19th century, the time of European preeminence and power; possibly, if was alive today, his views would have actually moved in the direction that “white supremacists” think they were.

But, alas, he wrote what he wrote, and a negative phrase about “stock exchange Jews” does not compensate for the constant pro-Jewish and anti-Semite-baiting nature of his writings.  Let’s be honest and stop the nonsense of Nietzsche being some sort of Darwinian proto-fascist and Germanic nationalist.  He was, in fact, completely the opposite.

Don’t believe it?  Then read ALL his works.

Not saying he was correct, but the “white supremacists” are not doing the man’s work justice by gross mis-interpretation.

Posted by James Bowery on February 08, 2007, 11:27 AM | #

Thanks for the informative post, ASZ.

Posted by alex zeka on February 08, 2007, 11:29 AM | #

I dare say that most “white supremacists” (have you met one yet?) probably look to Nietzche for the concept of a new, heroic man transcending his past, in this case an new Euroman transcending his past of race blindness, rather than embracing his philosophy in toto.

By the way, I assume that eusocial means Hive mind, as the only other reference to it I can find is the phrase ‘eusocial insects’.

Posted by Søren Renner on February 08, 2007, 11:34 AM | #

If FN despised Forster, then why did they go into business together? It is not generally known, but they tried together to market a patent medicie aphrodisiac,

“THE PILL TO WOW HER.”

Posted by Guessedworker on February 08, 2007, 11:40 AM | #

You need a decent spam filter.

Posted by James Bowery on February 08, 2007, 11:50 AM | #

“eusocial” by construction basically means “extremely social” but the social insects achieve this by sacrificing fully sexual reproduction to achieve something half way to cloning—haplodiploid reproduction.  I believe naked mole rats achieve a lesser degree of eusociality without haplodiploidy but their sexuality is extremely distorted.

Posted by Zarathustra on February 08, 2007, 12:20 PM | #

“I dare say that most “white supremacists” (have you met one yet?)”

Yes, I have.

“...probably look to Nietzche for the concept of a new, heroic man transcending his past, in this case an new Euroman transcending his past of race blindness, rather than embracing his philosophy in toto.”

I don’t know.  Both the Italian Fascists and German National Socialists (as well as anti-German Americans, see Mencken’s preface to “AntiChrist”) really distorted Nietzsche’s work.  And, I know some “white supremacists” who have done the same - take a few anti-Jewish comments out of context, interpret the “overman” in biological terms, etc.  I believe my criticism is justified.  I wonder how many of these “supremacists” know that FN thought the Jews “saved” western civilization in the middle ages, and that he thought that the “European of the future” should include mixing with Jews.

To put it another way, whether or not FN would have supported an “Imperium Europa”, he would have strongly objected to Lowell’s “anti-Semitism” and his apparent conception of the “overman” as having biological implications.

By the tone of your comment, you may think that I am approving of FN’s views and attacking Lowell.  That is incorrect; Lowell’s views are in tune with the year 2007, Nietzsche’s in tune with 1887.

Of course, if wish to say that these folks appreciate Nietzsche’s spiritual and broad philosophical underpinning - maybe. But many of these people I think invoke Nietzsche for ideas that the philosopher himself would have rejected.

Posted by James Bowery on February 08, 2007, 02:22 PM | #

Rusty had said: I was wondering about what to do with the people though and the way that they think about things.

Here is something concrete:

Learn self-sufficiency.

How much land does it take to grow your own food and what are the minimal tools and how do you construct those tools?  I know guys around the PNW who claim to have built hand-powered machine tools from native iron ore and wood fuel.  These men may be closer to the heliocentric individual than the “cognitive elitists”.

Posted by ben tillman on February 09, 2007, 07:39 PM | #

“THE PILL TO WOW HER.”

Well done, Soren.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 09, 2007, 08:13 PM | #

What I mean, James, is, How do you think people’s ideas can be changed so that they do not just repeat the same mistakes as before?  I have brought this question up in the PLE and “White Homeland” discussions on a few other forums several times.  The question I posed is, Even if Whites did come together to build a White community, what will keep all of the participants from bringing along their bad habits (excessive TV watching, financing Jewish debauchery through purchases of porn and other self-destructive behavior, lack of resistance to minority pushiness, lack of political experience, etc. ) that brought about the problems of Whites in the first place?

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 09, 2007, 08:17 PM | #

The anarchists have essentially the same problem.  Suppose that we could push a button and LewRockwell and crew, for example, got exactly what they wanted: no government.  What would happen?  Within .001 seconds, everyone would immediately set to rebuilding things exactly as they were before.  Their vision or conception of how the world is supposed to work hasn’t changed at all, only their circumstances.

Posted by Al Ross on February 09, 2007, 08:23 PM | #

‘The Pill to Wow Her’ seems an unlikely product of the mind of one of Cambridge’s most famous homosexuals.

Posted by Count Sudoku on February 09, 2007, 09:24 PM | #

Rusty Mason

If there was a “White Homeland” there would be no minorities and even if there were, if enough Whites thought as we did we would just flip them the bird. What is important is that we get control of a country (even a small, probably even better that it is small) so we control immigration, the media, education etc). When we do this we can recruit like minded people from other White countries through immigration and make it less and less pleasant for minorities that exist there so eventually most of them leave. We can also use the media and education system to make more of the indigenous Whites think more like us.

Posted by James Bowery on February 09, 2007, 10:08 PM | #

Rusty, the problem boils down to the process of realizing freedom of association aka self-determination.  I’ve talked about this before in what might be called allodial assortative migration.  If you replace all other so-called “human rights” (we won’t talk about other life forms for the moment) with an allodial right to subsistence land that follows assortative migration, then you get the kind of process needed to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The problem is that “civilization” has created a monster that insists that anyone who believes they have a better idea than those that want to take control of their lives is a “supremacist” and therefore to be denied their human rights.

This means that either civilization must be destroyed or it must be threatened with destruction to the point that it inhibits its tyrannical hypocrisy.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 09, 2007, 11:01 PM | #

Civilization must be destroyed?  Well, that’s happening now.  Or, by civilization, do you mean most of the people too?

Posted by James Bowery on February 10, 2007, 12:17 AM | #

Civilization is destroying itself, true, but in the process it is also destroying us.  Better we destroy it.

Destroying people is not necessary except those people who insist on supporting the monster rather than themselves.  Such people would include parasites on the rest of us.

Posted by Rusty Mason on February 10, 2007, 11:14 AM | #

James, what would you like to keep of what exists now?  What new things would you add?

Posted by James Bowery on February 10, 2007, 03:40 PM | #

See my most recent article Postcivil society: Empty the Cities.