Ockham’s Guillotine – a conversation with James Bowery

In a time of crisis, anything seems possible. In today’s slow moving descent into globalism, which James Bowery describes as a system that turned us all into ‘mechanical turks’, the recent emergence of a global pandemic has thrown all previous assumptions into question and opens the possibility for something new. With a strong science background in chemistry and computer science, James has worked on information theory, biofuels, and recently a concept he terms as ‘property money.’ In this wide-ranging conversation, we discuss with James why the current system isn’t working, what we should be striving for, and ultimately how we can best go about making these hoped for changes a reality.

— Brought to you by —

Very special guest James Bowery


Myth of the 20th Century – Episode 163 – Ockham’s Guillotine – a conversation with James Bowery

— References —

– Innate Social Aptitudes of Man, Hamilton (1975) – http://www.majorityrights.com/docs/Hamilton75.pdf
– The Ethnostate, Robinson (1993)
– Why Princeton was spared, Bernstein (2008) – https://paw.princeton.edu/article/why-princeton-was-spared
– In Our Hands, Murray (2006)
– The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, Anthony (2007)
– Coming Apart, Murray (2010)
– Ancestral Journeys, Manco (2013)
– Zero to One, Thiel (2014)
– Ending Imprisonment’s Slavery With Border Enforcement, Bowery (2016) – http://sortocracy.org/ending-imprisonments-slavery-with-border-enforcement/
– The Moral Individual vs Acting As One, Red Ice (2017) – https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-moral-individual-vs-acting-as-one
– Civil War II – America Unraveling – John Mark, Myth of the 20th Century (2019) – https://myth20c.wordpress.com/2019/04/10/civil-war-ii-america-unraveling-john-mark/
– Bell Labs – The Idea Factory, Myth of the 20th Century (2019) – https://myth20c.wordpress.com/2019/11/20/bell-labs-the-idea-factory/
– Cybernetics – Across the Grid, Myth of the 20th Century (2020) – https://myth20c.wordpress.com/2020/02/19/cybernetics-across-the-grid/
– Property Money, Bowery (2020) – https://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2020/01/property-money.html
– Haplogroup is not language, but R1b-L23 expansion was associated with Proto-Indo-Europeans – https://indo-european.eu/haplogroup-is-not-language-but-r1b-l23-expansion-was-associated-with-proto-indo-europeans/
– Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontier: Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space – https://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2018/04/necessity-and-incentives-opening-space.html
– Unqualified Reservations – https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/
– Fair Church Dogma – http://www.fairchurch.org/MayTheBestWin.html
– Spasim – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasim

10 Comments Add yours

  1. FC says:

    What a great guest!

    I wish you guys could be more organized. Stick to the outline and stop derailing the host with “fun facts.” Bowery had to keep dragging you back to the structured arguments he was explaining.


  2. Fez says:

    The “human ecology” conversation really sounded like a tacit apology for mass immigration. “An injection of barbarian DNA will save us!”


    1. FC says:

      He was saying barbarian DNA from Indo-Europeans who operated under conditions of sovereignty. This doesn’t apply to contemporary circumstances wherein immivaders engage in parasitism.


  3. Captain says:

    This has got to be one of the best episodes in recent memory, and this is by no means an indictment of previously released content. Thoroughly enjoyed it and learned a lot. Hats off to you all, best regards and good luck from Australia.


  4. Ghân, son of Ghân says:

    I am one of those people James Bowery mentioned, who wants him and Curt Doolittle to talk. I have asked both of them and I am confused and frustrated by the way both of them have responded.

    Last year I asked Curt in one of his FB threads if he knew of Bowery, since they seemed to have a lot in common, and wondered if he would be interested to speak with him. Curt said he was unaware of Bowery, but would be happy to speak with him if someone were to set up a meeting.

    I am FB friends with James Bowery so I sent him a message saying this. He then said basically what he said in this podcast, that Curt hasn’t deigned to speak with him, because he’s afraid to or something.

    Meanwhile I don’t understand the Myth guys’ hostility to what John Mark has said; in their interview with him they seemed prejudiced, far too eager to conflate propertarianism with libertarianism as such, and the attitude that came across then, as now, I find oddly smug and dismissive.

    Honestly it seems to me that everyone has a bit of ego-checking to do here, not just Curt. Why don’t we focus on trying to set up a discussion between these two amazing guys, and quit backbiting?


    1. FC says:

      There is virtually no thinker in the dissident movement that doesn’t have 5 ongoing bitter feuds. Maybe only Mark Collet avoids this. Look at the recent dust-up between people who should be allies: Gariepy, Doolittle, Molyneaux. One day they are talking nicely and the next publicly attacking each other.

      Practical leadership will have to come from other types of people. This is the next step. We need people who can manage egos, and who understand diplomacy and subtlety.

      As for Propertarianism, people are getting too autistic. Remember Doolittle’s objectives are something like this:
      1. Moral justification.
      2. Set of demands.
      3. Means for achieving those demands(renegotiation or revolution).
      4. System to implement.

      *Revolution doesn’t have to be violent. We want a renegotiation.

      P possibly satisfies objectives 1 and 2 and those are the important ones cause they come first. But people keep on focusing on 3 and 4. Whatever P’s flaws, they pale in comparison to the lunacy of Marxism and yet that doctrine inspired millions to give up their lives. So I don’t give a damn about 3 and 4. It should just plausibly address those objectives.


  5. James Bowery says:

    GHÂN, SON OF GHÂN, I suggest you click through this link and read my response and Curt’s response:


    There was another exchange, not sure where but it may have been in his FB feed, in which Curt basically said that the Fair Church’s meta-ecclesiastical rules and the 9 rules of the Berkana Ecclesium were too dissimilar to the US Constitution and that people wouldn’t get it. You will notice that a lot of John Mark’s videos complain that people critique the Propertarian Constitution without offering something against which it can be compared. I’m perfectly willing to do a blow by blow comparison with any Propertarian. There hasn’t been a single time I’ve turned Curt away or blown him off. My request for something of “comparable parsimony” representing the Propertarian Constitution has not yet been met. Maybe the Propertarian Constitution’s >250k document (that excludes its “Federalist Papers” exegesis) is considered as parsimonious as practical by Propertarians. If so, that’s fine. It’s an adequate starting point if its operational terms can’t be distilled to something of comparable parsimony to my operational terms.

    Really (and I’ve said this before in response to John Mark’s videos and I believe in response to Curt himself), the Propertarian Constitution is best thought of as an ecclesium within the Fair Church’s meta religion, as is my Berkana Ecclesium. When I started emphasizing this in the context of jurisdictional arbitrage, John Mark started emphasizing in his videos “power distance” and similar kinds of jurisdictional arbitrage offered by the Propertarian Constitution, although not spelling out the operations it defines that achieve that. That would help with the comparison.

    However, the Fair Church is best thought of as an updated Treaty of Westphalia rather than an updated US Constitution. The Treaty of Westphalia inherited the jurisdictional arbitrage principle of Cuius regio, eius religio (his region, his religion) from the Peace of Augsburg, without establishing anything like the judicial arbitration set forth by the Propertarian Constitution.

    See http://fairchurch.org/AProtestantInstauration.pdf

    The resulting nation states were more sovereign than were the states of the US under the Constitution. Indeed, the US could be considered such a nation state under the Treaty of Westphalia (were it not for the denigration of the word “nation” the came later in US history).

    Maybe Curt has come up with something that can do more to avert wars between the nation states under such an assortative migratory treaty than does the Fair Church’s allocation of territorial to various ecclesia on a per capita basis — and do so without turning into the kind of shit show we have with the EU, the US, NATO, etc. But it is unlikely to get the support he needs for a successful insurgency, according to the conditions described by John Robb in his analysis of fourth generation warfare — the most important of which is parsimony of end objective of the war.

    I suggest listening to John Robb’s latest podcast talking about how insurgencies succeed and fail in the context of the war against the pandemic as open source insurgency:



    1. FC says:

      Hello James Bowery, are you interested in coming on JF Gariepy’s show?


  6. Yes, I owe Gariepy an interview in response to a request some time ago, when he published “The Revolutionary Phenotype”. I read it and I must say I did not find the subject compelling enough to delve very deeply into it, just as I’m not very interested in worrying about “unfriendly artificial general intelligence” given my perception we are already subject to one: The Global Economy that’s turning us into mechanical Turks. The threat of “The Revolutionary Phenotype,” such as it is, strikes me as far less urgent than the issues rendering the interview with myth20c salient.


    1. Wolf says:

      It was probably me who recommended you as a guest awhile go. I think an appearance would be to discuss your own ideas, not “The Revolutionary Phenotype.” Anyway, I suppose you already have his contact info.

      “The Global Economy that’s turning us into mechanical Turks” sound interesting.

      That WD Hamilton paper you were talking about sounds really interesting as well. I’ve heard some people cite it as evidence that Hamilton supported multilevel selection theory.
      WD Hamilton, Innate Social Aptitudes of Man – https://majorityrights.com/docs/Hamilton75.pdf
      David Sloan Wilson – https://evolution-institute.org/was-hamilton-a-group-selectionist-a-conversation-with-oren-harman/
      Razib Khan – https://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/02/08/innate-social-aptitudes-of-man
      HBD Chick – https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/tag/why-i-otter/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s