AN APPEAL TO NATURAL LAW IS NOT A NATURALISTIC FALLACY. (from a friend) —“Curt

AN APPEAL TO NATURAL LAW IS NOT A NATURALISTIC FALLACY.

(from a friend)

—“Curt: Do you consider an appeal to nature to be a fallacy? I spoke to a woman recently about how xenoestrogens in plastics dramatically reduced the testosterone levels in men, after which she responded with a resonating “So what? Why does it matter if men become less masculine?” …. I am bothered by the fact that this apparent “fallacy” exists, since it seems completely counter-evolutionary and consequently destructive. It is indeed possible that we could feminize our men through chemical transformation, just as we could masculinize our women through chemical transformation.”— (A Friend)

RESPONSE

The question is whether we would survive competition from those who feminized their women and masculinized their men.

And the evidence at present is that women have feminized our men through institutions and propaganda, spread vast increases of mental health issues, and empowered out enemies to conquer us.

And while a woman may say ‘this is ok, we are no better than they’, a man may equally say, then if they are my genetic enemies, my cultural enemies, and you wold empower them, then why is it that you are not my enemy, and I should not return you to silence, physical punishment, virtual slavery, limited to your home, lacking legal and political standing, and subject the wit and whim of me and mine?

This is what the Islamists pursue, so if they are no better than we, then why should I and mine not pursue it against you and yours?

You see, our reproductive and strategic differences are in competition, and we compromise only because it is of mutual benefit to us men, and to our daughters, to offer you that compromise. But if you choose to break that compromise, there is literally nothing you can do without strong men to rally to your aid, to stop us from returning you to submission and slavery.

So it is not a matter of nature. it is a matter of compromise. Natural Law does not appeal to natural behavior of some kind but of demonstrated interest in cooperating. In other words, it is an appeal to incentives to continue the status quo, or to discontinue the status quo and create another more suitable to our interests.

Either we are engaged in compromise by voluntary exchange, or we are not. If we are not and we cause each other no harm, then that is one thing. But if we are not and you cause me harm, the you must realize that we are stronger, faster, smarter, more violent, higher risk, and that this world that you enjoy was built not because of you free riders, but because we wished to attract our women and please our daughters, rather than merely purchase and enslave them. There are vast regions of this world where men still enslave women, and the only people working to stop them are white men.

If I want to beat you how can you stop me? You cannot. Only men can. So will you trade compromise with me, or shall I return you to the herd where we domesticated you, by force of violence.

But there are no conditions under which we will tolerate the genocide of our race because our women choose to conspire against us.

ie: natural law = trade.

Neither of us are completely satisfied, but we are as satisfied as we can both be without causing the dissatisfaction of the other.