—“ISIS is left-wing, because they have a stated egalitarian ideology that views all races as equal and lay a universal claim to political authority, believing that all cultures and governments not subservient to the Islamic State are illegitimate and hence rightful for ISIS to conquer”—Amr Ibn Hisham
Yes. Test?
r/left/universal/dysgenic VERSUS k/right/particular/eugenic
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 10:01:00 UTC
—“Any pretense of humanity having diverged from its most reliable and durable political system (monarchy) is just another load of bullshit virtue signaling. Our kings elect our presidents. We’re just the upscale peasants that think we had a say in the matter.”— Emil Prelic
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 13:29:00 UTC
You think I’m passionate about the different regions of the USA? About Ukraine? About Poland? About every secessionist movement? About the people of Nigeria and Ghana? That’s just because it’s what I know well enough to argue about.
LOOK:
Nation, tribe, clan, family <-> father, Headman, Nobleman, Monarchy
Only the west could develop rule without rulers: natural law.
BUT EVERY PEOPLE CAN BE FREE BY USING IT.
*NATIONALISM*
Love thyself, love thy kin, then thy neighbor, then mankind.
Because it is through this love we redistribute and bear the costs of persistence, and through constraint of our own against the parasitism upon others that we bear the costs of transcendence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 12:05:00 UTC
THINKING OF SOVEREIGNTY AT THE GROUP EVOLUTIONARY SCALE NOT THE INDIVIDUAL SCALE: LIBERTY OR FREEDOM
—“I think that [Doolittle] wants to incentivize cooperation within the group so that the group will succeed in its environment and in competition with other groups. In these situations, it does not matter whether individuals cooperate in order to benefit themselves or in order to benefit the group, and their justifications do not matter; the cooperation which allows the group to succeed matters (to us). I feel like I have missed a few details, so maybe someone will help fill them in.”– Brandon Vaughn
ANSWER:
Correct.
The western group competitive (evolutionary) strategy is non-parasitism, truth, high trust, to produce normative commons, the returns upon which – whether genetic, normative, institutional or physical capital – are greater than groups that cannot produce such commons can compete with.
Commons are the west’s competitive advantage. And we alone other than the japanese seem able to produce them at any substantial scale.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 13:03:00 UTC
SUMMARY
There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of subsidy of the weak, other than a monarchy, martial aristocracy, and militia of the enfranchised. Because there is no method of decidability, no method of insurance, and no process other than violence: threat, punishment, murder, and revolt. And the method of licensing violence and revolt early and often is a constitution of natural law that provides the incentive to prosecute individuals at all levels by anyone with the information to do so – such that no power can ever accumulate sufficiently to deny a group, the militia, the aristocracy, or the monarchy the license to first prosecute by juridical means, then by martial means. This institution is self perpetuating if for no other reason than the universality, the status, and the high cost of obtaining that status and responsibility. Expensive rituals endure. Every man a sheriff. A warrior. A Judge.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 09:06:00 UTC
William Butchman
re: —“I see sovereignty as the strategy, and the heroic narrative in myth, religion, literature, history… and science, as the western narrative.”— Curt Doolittle
I posit that the NSDAP did that. But they had a positive value system which failed when validated against the Darwinian test. I think that sovereignty via heroism can be pursued in many ways, but the outcome will vary greatly based on the positive value system… something via negative cannot provide.
Curt Doolittle
correct. and something we cannot KNOW. Therefore we require a market for via-positiva value systems, so that we calculate by trial and error the possibility that at least one of them will work.
Which is saying the same thing EXCEPT I intuit (right or wrong) that you (like most) desire a monopoly narrative, not a market for them.
Via negativa, sovereignty, and transcendence are enough for those who possess agency, because the need for anything ELSE is an admission of the lack of agency.
But few men possess agency. Even in this group where we have many smart people that number is in the low single digits.
The rest of men want only (a) convfirmation that their narrative, the narrative needed for their level of agency, is ‘good’. (b) the method of arguing against competing narratives with lower or higher agency.
I think that like reproductive value, like class, like intelligence, we must understand that agency is another trait that separates us – and that we seek to deny until we can no longer deny it.
My advocacy of natural law (truth), and soverignty, is not to advance our people as much as it is to prevent the harm to our people by those who would make the same excuses (arguments) as a means of distributing (selling) another parasitic and predatory narrative as did the jews and teh christians and muslims, and buddhists.
So the man lacking sovereignty seeks via positiva, and the man possessing sovereignty seeks via negativa – there is nothing else for the sovereign to SEEK.
The powerful are so becaue of correspondence. They do not need license, they need to eliminate competitors.
There are many layers of weakness (lack of agency) below sovergithy. we must give them the tools to transcend.
If they do not want those tools we must force them or exterminate them out of defense. If they cannot use the tools we must manufacture them (narratives) that support them.
This is the unstated conundrum you and Bill Joslin are struggling with.
To which the uncomfortable answer is evident, but requires intellectual honesty.
The answer is sovereignty, natural law, and via negativa. But there are very few capable of it. Even if it is the only means of transcendence and therefore production. All other alternatives are not methods of transcendence and production, but of decline, and consumption.
Accepting this is probably the one thing you’d both need to do in order to lead those who share your intuitions, rather than require a leader with those intuitions who had made that acceptance.
Love always.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 10:01:00 UTC
CTHULU SWIMS LEFT WITHOUT A CURRENT OF NATURAL LAW
Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right, meaning meritocratic, non-discretionary, and fully calculable, will, by increment, evolve into explicitly left, meaning corrupt, fully discretionary, and fully incalculable.
Natural law is explicitly right, meaning, meritocratic, non-discretionary, and fully calculable. It cannot swim left. And as far as I know it is the only institutional means of preventing Cthulu swimming left.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 08:37:00 UTC
Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right will, by increment, evolve into explicitly left, fully discretionary, and fully incalculable.
Natural law is explicitly right, and non-discretionary, and fully calculable.
In this sense I see religion as having the permission of the Sovereignty and the Court, but that is all. Religion does not get a pass on lying.
Via-negativa removes falsehoods that allow us to more cost effectively discover a value system – especially by avoiding those that will fail, and those that are predatory.
In other words, once you have surpassed human scale it is more beneficial to use via-negativa and markets than via-positiva and concentration of capital.
Just as we need multiple languages to talk to multiple layers of ability (classes), and just as we need multiple states to serve the interests of multiple layers of tribes; and just as we need multiple sciences to break the world into parts that we can disassemble; and just as we need multiple economies (military (slave), commons (serf), union(unskilled labor), market (producers), and finance (gamblers), we need multiple NARRATIVES just as we always have: the religious for the weak, the philosophical for the able, and the heroic for the superior.
Those narratives already exist. The problem is thinking Your’re everyone (democracy and equality) rather than the member of a class.
The universe may be beyond human scale, but the scope of action available to humans of different ability varies dramatically from those who can barely care for themselves, to those that can care for others, to those that can manage others, to those that can organize others, to those that can organize many, to those that can advocate for as many as they can serve.
Choose the tool that serves the scale that is possible for you.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 00:16:00 UTC
( Sketch ) Men with the Agency to demand Sovereignty for themselves, and liberty, freedom and subsidy for their kin, do not need a leader to direct them – that would be illogical. They need an achievable goal, organization, communication, strategy, tactics, and communication. And they need to rally a few handful of men of like minds. It is only logical that a group of men with agency, in pursue of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, and the transcendence that results, would conduct a revolution by market rather than means of central leadership. When throwing a revolution against a fragile but powerful state, one needs only to exploit the fragility of the fragile state, and to let fragility do the work for the revolutionaries. No civilization has been more fragile, and no time ever more full of opportunity than the anglo-american empire in the current era.
( Sketch ) Men with the Agency to demand Sovereignty for themselves, and liberty, freedom and subsidy for their kin, do not need a leader to direct them – that would be illogical. They need an achievable goal, organization, communication, strategy, tactics, and communication. And they need to rally a few handful of men of like minds. It is only logical that a group of men with agency, in pursue of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, and the transcendence that results, would conduct a revolution by market rather than means of central leadership. When throwing a revolution against a fragile but powerful state, one needs only to exploit the fragility of the fragile state, and to let fragility do the work for the revolutionaries. No civilization has been more fragile, and no time ever more full of opportunity than the anglo-american empire in the current era.