—“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend There are only three conditions: 1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions). 2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions). 3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification. And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria. The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly) The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”). I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch. Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry). (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)
Source: Original Site Post
-
Revoking the Legitimacy of A Monarchy (sovereign)
—“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend There are only three conditions: 1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions). 2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions). 3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification. And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria. The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly) The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”). I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch. Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry). (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)
-
You Will Eventually Disagree with Me
I will inevitably make you disagree with me for the simple reason that nearly all of us are invested in some excuse or other that violates natural law. You will not take my advice and accept that the problem is the man in the mirror, but instead, you will blame me or my work or my reasoning, or my incentives, just like you blame others for the status quo, rather than the man in the mirror. It is extremely difficult to possess sufficient agency such that we ritualize intellectual honesty. While almost all of us are capable of it, few of us train for it, and fewer of us develop it in the course of life, and even fewer of us are born with the disposition. Truth knows no exception.
-
You Will Eventually Disagree with Me
I will inevitably make you disagree with me for the simple reason that nearly all of us are invested in some excuse or other that violates natural law. You will not take my advice and accept that the problem is the man in the mirror, but instead, you will blame me or my work or my reasoning, or my incentives, just like you blame others for the status quo, rather than the man in the mirror. It is extremely difficult to possess sufficient agency such that we ritualize intellectual honesty. While almost all of us are capable of it, few of us train for it, and fewer of us develop it in the course of life, and even fewer of us are born with the disposition. Truth knows no exception.
-
Groups Differ in The Degree of Suppression of Externalization of Costs
—“Why should I be barred from contributing to the growth of another who would in turn contribute to my own growth?”— Bennard Ebanks When doing so imposes costs upon others by externality, who tolerate your presence only under the condition that you do not do so. Groups differ in the degree of suppression of externalization of costs. High trust high performance, homogenous polities are intolerant – and because they are, they have the choice. Low trust, heterogeneous, low performing are tolerant. Because they have no other choice.
-
Groups Differ in The Degree of Suppression of Externalization of Costs
—“Why should I be barred from contributing to the growth of another who would in turn contribute to my own growth?”— Bennard Ebanks When doing so imposes costs upon others by externality, who tolerate your presence only under the condition that you do not do so. Groups differ in the degree of suppression of externalization of costs. High trust high performance, homogenous polities are intolerant – and because they are, they have the choice. Low trust, heterogeneous, low performing are tolerant. Because they have no other choice.
-
Stupid: The Short Obvious, Selfish, Moron-Route to Political Change
—“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost? As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people. As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples. As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples. As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples. DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so. RECIPROCITY But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me. Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his. Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his. NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear. All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended. Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate. CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself. Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers. Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools. ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***
-
Stupid: The Short Obvious, Selfish, Moron-Route to Political Change
—“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost? As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people. As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples. As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples. As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples. DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so. RECIPROCITY But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me. Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his. Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his. NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear. All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended. Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate. CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself. Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers. Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools. ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***
-
Women See Risk, and Men See Opportunity.
Women fear to alter the status quo when it creates risk, men do not since it creates opportunity. This is why women perpetuate virtue signals like they do fashion signals or hen-pecking in female groups. It never ends. There is no optimum condition. Women voted to alter the status quo as a virtue, fashion, pecking cycle. It’s endless (Suicidal, obsessive, precognitive). Children and men are costly, so if they can marry the state and invite underclass opponents, and end marriage demands, they will do so (and have demonstrated it everywhere). So they have and do alter the status quo, they will not vote and do not act or vote to produce scarcity even when scarcity of opportunity is the optimum intertemporal investment.
-
Women See Risk, and Men See Opportunity.
Women fear to alter the status quo when it creates risk, men do not since it creates opportunity. This is why women perpetuate virtue signals like they do fashion signals or hen-pecking in female groups. It never ends. There is no optimum condition. Women voted to alter the status quo as a virtue, fashion, pecking cycle. It’s endless (Suicidal, obsessive, precognitive). Children and men are costly, so if they can marry the state and invite underclass opponents, and end marriage demands, they will do so (and have demonstrated it everywhere). So they have and do alter the status quo, they will not vote and do not act or vote to produce scarcity even when scarcity of opportunity is the optimum intertemporal investment.