It’s because I don’t do symbolism, I don’t do utilitarianism, I don’t do pragmatism, I do truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, heroism, duty, and markets in everything. Why? There is more to a polity than money and property. It is our commons that are our competitive advantage.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 08:21:00 UTC
1) Moral Objectivity = Reciprocity:Natural Law(of Tort) independent of individual or group opinion.
2) Moral Norms = Portfolios of rights and duties resulting in reciprocity within the group survival strategy.
3) Moral Bias = Expression of gender and class reproductive strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 01:35:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998376779592200193
Reply addressees: @KialoHQ
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996337335544500229
IN REPLY TO:
@Kialo
What is right? Can we say? Can you? How would anyone know they were right? How can you tell? Join the Kialo debate on whether morality is objective! https://t.co/DLBPz7YxvI
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996337335544500229
One of the reasons for an exhaustive treatment of Natural Law (White Sharia) is in leaving few if any questions unanswered, so that we don’t have all this ‘rhetoricism’ (pilpul, verbal numerology).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 01:31:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998375733687963649
MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE AND THE CONSTITUTION IS CONSTRUCTED FROM IT.
1) Moral Objectivity = Reciprocity:Natural Law(of Tort) independent of individual or group opinion.
2) Moral Norms = Portfolios of rights and duties resulting in reciprocity within the group survival strategy.
3) Moral Bias = Expression of gender and class reproductive strategy.
The problem is that we all want to ‘lie a bit’ and promote our individual strategy over the Group’s and the Groups over Evolutionary Necessity: Mankind.
And that constitution survived until the war of northern aggression by which the industrialized north conquered the south because the west would have allied with the south and left the north a weak competitor to Europe, dominated by the agrarian aristocratic south.
The constitution was the first written attempt to formally capture The Natural Law of Reciprocity as the means of decidability in political order: They invented The Third Way: Middle Class Market Meritocracy vs Upper/Martial, or Lower/Religious monopoly.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 21:48:00 UTC
One of the reasons for an exhaustive treatment of Natural Law (White Sharia) is in leaving few if any questions unanswered, so that we don’t have all this ‘rhetoricism’ (pilpul, verbal numerology).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 21:31:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW ON MISCEGENATION
(this oughtta get me in trouble)
—“Hi Curt … Regarding your post on natural law being sharia for whites … what would be the logical stance of natural law toward a nordic woman from Minnesota with a 125 IQ marrying an 85-IQ immigrant from Somalia? Would the negative externalities need to be incorporated into a natural law approach to this?”— A Friend
Well first, putting aside that this example violates near universal demonstration of female hypergamy. But it does happen.
Second, some group may choose NOT to invest in and insure their genetic commons, and some group might choose to invest in and insure their genetic commons. The longer term question of whether the dysgenic and the eugenic polities will eventually end up in conflict is a practical rather than legal question.
Natural Law says only that we may not impose costs upon the investments others – particularly those that they choose to defend. So if you moved to a polity that didn’t insure the genetics of the group over the desires of the individual, then it’s not a violation. If instead you attempt to impose costs upon a group that insures the genetic commons of the group, then that’s a violation.
I would say that it’s cause for exit or removal because (a) one cannot perform restitution for genetic dilution(pollution), and (b) one cannot perform restitution for the externalities created – all of which are bad. In fact, genetic disinformation (pollution) is perhaps the worst possible crime with the longest consequences. More so than murder.
So the only form of restitution for those impositions of costs upon the genetic, cultural, and normative commons, is voluntary exist or forcible removal.
My view is that reproduction under 92 should be prohibited, and under 100 limited to one child. (using current distribution numbers, where 106 is the ‘minimum median’).
This is the only way reproduction is not damaging to the genetic commons for those groups that want to invest in the genetic commons, and pay the cost of insuring that commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 19:17:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW ON KILLING
—“Punishment for killing someone does not necessarily imply they had any actual value . At the societal level the punishment is automatic.”— Edgar Braintree
They are not punishing you for killing the individual, but for not getting sanction from others before doing so. In other words, they are punishing you for hubris.
Getting a dozen men (jury) together to hang someone from a tree is very different from killing someone vengefully. If death is sanctioned then appeal exists, hubris, and error limited. What we seek to limit is unsanctioned deaths, without appeal, insured against hubris, and error.
If you act without sanction you are a risk to the group. If you act with sanction you reduce group risk.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 18:57:00 UTC
Well, you know, natural law is in fact the white equivalent of sharia. The question is whether we insure ourselves to the same degree under natural law. Truth is more intolerant than lies.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 15:24:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998223045419466752
If you won’t start the fight, fight, and end the fight by defeating the enemy completely, you’re a free rider on those that do, not a man of virtue or character. The time to fight is coming.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 14:53:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998215018297659396
Well, you know, natural law is in fact the white equivalent of sharia. The question is whether we insure ourselves to the same degree under natural law. Truth is more intolerant than lies.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 11:24:00 UTC