Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.
Theme: Sovereignty
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“It’s obvious now the clerics of the Churc
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“It’s obvious now the clerics of the Church and clerics of Islam are operating in complementary fashion against their common enemy: the sovereignty and agency of western man.
Whereas sovereign man desires to keep his agency and sovereignty for himself, and to lift every one of these thieving murderous cleric fraudsters atop a pike.
Which he will have to do, at least metaphorically.
There is money to be made.
Confiscate and reallocate their money.”— William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 15:17:24 UTC
-
“It’s obvious now the clerics of the Church and clerics of Islam are operating i
—“It’s obvious now the clerics of the Church and clerics of Islam are operating in complementary fashion against their common enemy: the sovereignty and agency of western man.
Whereas sovereign man desires to keep his agency and sovereignty for himself, and to lift every one of these thieving murderous cleric fraudsters atop a pike.
Which he will have to do, at least metaphorically.
There is money to be made.
Confiscate and reallocate their money.”— William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 11:17:00 UTC
-
“The beauty of having rule of law (natural law of reciprocity) + a militia is yo
—“The beauty of having rule of law (natural law of reciprocity) + a militia is you have both top-down and bottom-up incremental suppression going at the same time.”—John Mark
—“The inescapable, inexorable, distributed dictatorship of free men…”—Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 09:12:00 UTC
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVERE
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
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.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:21:44 UTC
-
REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN) —“What legal grounds can the
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.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 10:21:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE COMPLETE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS 1 – The Decla
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THE COMPLETE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natural Law as justification for secession(independence).
2 – The Bill of Rights codifies the natural law as they enumerated those rights at the time.
3 – The Constitution describes the organization and processes of the government.
I tend to tell people to read them in that order: Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution: from the reason for the secession: violation of natural law, to the articulation of the specific defenses of it, to the institutions that protect it yet still allow for the production of commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 23:30:47 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM ISN’T
When say that you are a White Nationalist your not solving the problem: building a worldwide movement, exiting leftists (defectors) from the gene pool, and saving another 5000 years of costly eugenics. We know we’ve spent 3500 years or more on eugenic evolution by cultural design, and it’s possible much more than that by accident. There is no need for a monopoly and to dominate. It’s not helpful. So voluntary separation is all that is necessary. And race is an insufficient criteria.
The only thing that matters is voluntary association and disassociation. The markets for polities will solve everything for us just as all markets solve all other issues for us.
Why? We can afford to produce commons that suit the genetic interests of different groups. So rather than fight an impossible fight, lets just serve one another’s interests.
Serve EVERYONE’s political interests.
Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
====== UPDATE ======
Funny that some people understand propaganda and some don’t. I have this suspicion that what makes our people fragile, is that we have been performing truth to power for so many thousands of years that it’s in our genes, and that is why we are both susceptible to propaganda and bad at making it.
WN is Bad Prop. Nationalism and commons preferred by each group is GOOD prop. Good prop makes allies. Bad prop creates resistance.
The simple and direct route is the one that is predictable. Great generals maneuver: they let the opponent take the direct route and take the indirect route to defeat them.
The psychological drive for directness is male aggression. This is why some people fight physically, others legally, others politically, and others informationally.
WN is bad Prop. Universal Nationalism to foster group flourishing is Good Prop.
Help everyone to help ourselves.
The bigger ambition provides the shortest distance and duration.
===== UPDATE ====
NATIONALISM
– ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.
– markets the optimum economic strategy.
– eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.
– neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.
===== UPDATE ====
THE DEAD END RIGHT: WN
W.N. is a dead end. Nationalism is not.
National Socialism is a dead end. Redistribution is not.
Religion is Dead End. Institutional models are not.
Takeover is a dead end. Separatism is not.
Demonstrations are a dead end. Direct action is not.
Solving your problem is a dead end. Solving everyone’s is not.
Ideology is a dead end. Economics Incentives Are Not.
THE SOLUTIONS MOVEMENTS NEED
All revolutions occur because of a convergence between:
(a) the state’s inability to modify it’s behavior to serve the diverging interests of the public.
(b) a common knowledge of an alternative condition (order) that would be preferable,
(c) a surplus of males that are agitated by this condition,
(d) an economic or political event that provides opportunity for collective action that can ‘spiral’ (increase in momentum).
REALITIES OF MOVEMENTS
The early adopters seek the fringe. The population seeks an Overton Window. As movements age, they upgrade members from the fringe to the Overton Window: Fringe personalities perform research for talented personalities that perform research for mainstream personalities.
We have better followers this year than last.
We had better followers last year than the year before.
We had better followers the year before last, than the year before … and so on.
I don’t want to associate with the fringe that hinders capture of the Overton Window. They are a dead end. All that matters is the people who will fight, resist, advocate, or not get in the way. And those people will be captured by economic and cultural incentives – not ideology.
REVOLUTION
A moral License.
A set of Demands.
A plan of Transition.
A means of raising the cost of the status quo.
Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:58:47 UTC