Are human rights superior than sovereignty? https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=46c45223
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 15:39:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724623803108712449
Dear politicians and bureaucrats. Let me help you.
The constitution lists my rights as an englishman.
But you misunderstand them.
It is a list of the things we let you do, rather than kill you.
If you abridge that document you do not violate an abstract principle.
You violate the only reason I do not kill you.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 13:59:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=46c45223ARE HUMAN RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO SOVEREIGNTY?
(obviously a non-english speaker in india posted this question)
The question is somewhat interesting since both Human Rights (which are all property rights by the way), and Sovereignty are ambitions one can seek to produce not states of nature that must be abridged. However, the misleading nature of the question aside:
The ‘Postwar Consensus’ and the International Charter of Human Rights, were designed to prevent wars by requiring that all states direct policy and resources to the development of rule of law and modern economy, using largely political and economic pressure. But also military pressure if necessary – almost always provided by the USA, as the successor to, or continuation of, the British Empire.
In this sense, sovereignty was limited by the western world (America-and-Anglo-conquered-Europe) to the expansion of human rights and consumer capitalism (and mistakenly, democracy) in exchange for limited aggression against them.
This consensus held largely until Russia invaded Ukraine, set up rebel governments in the Donbas basin, seized Crimea, threatened Eastern Europe with reconquest in 2014. Since then, the combination of policies designed to weaken American political economic and military power by the Obama Administration, and the need to pivot back against the Russian threat, have exposed the Nato Alliance (the USA) as incapable of protecting member states, and the remaining member states unwilling to defend other member states – and possibly themselves. Furthermore, China’s expansion into sea territories claimed by others, and Russian expansion into disputed the arctic, have further ended the postwar consensus. So the postwar consensus has been de facto ended.
Practically speaking, the only guarantee of sovereignty in the 21st century is provided by nuclear weapons, and a standing military capable of suppressing both domestic populations and at least making invasion extremely difficult or expensive. There is no longer any even tepid guarantee of human rights imposed by a collection of foreign states. And in fact, the only incentive for states to defend human rights is to defend the financing of their militaries, by defending their economies using consumer capitalism, which requires human rights in order to function.
South Korea being the world’s only substantial hold out. The Arab countries quickly switching now to consumer capitalism given the change in future oil revenue predictions. The same problem faces Russian which for all intents and purposes is an enormous gas station, where 50% of revenues depend on natural resources.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 11:39:00 UTC
We Must Rule, and Profit From our Ruling. Others Can’t Rule Morally.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:42:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724518919931830272
Reply addressees: @etraditionalist @RichardBSpencer @skiguru @FreddyNEPM @WhiteMansDurden
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724505843404791808
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724505843404791808
The question is somewhat interesting since both Human Rights (which are all property rights by the way), and Sovereignty are ambitions one can seek to produce not states of nature that must be abridged. However, the misleading nature of the question aside:
The ‘Postwar Consensus’ and the International Charter of Human Rights, were designed to prevent wars by requiring that all states direct policy and resources to the development of rule of law and modern economy, using largely political and economic pressure. But also military pressure if necessary – almost always provided by the USA, as the successor to, or continuation of, the British Empire.
In this sense, sovereignty was limited by the western world (America-and-Anglo-conquered-Europe) to the expansion of human rights and consumer capitalism (and mistakenly, democracy) in exchange for limited aggression against them.
This consensus held largely until Russia invaded Ukraine, set up rebel governments in the Donbas basin, seized Crimea, threatened Eastern Europe with reconquest in 2014. Since then, the combination of policies designed to weaken American political economic and military power by the Obama Administration, and the need to pivot back against the Russian threat, have exposed the Nato Alliance (the USA) as incapable of protecting member states, and the remaining member states unwilling to defend other member states – and possibly themselves. Furthermore, China’s expansion into sea territories claimed by others, and Russian expansion into disputed the arctic, have further ended the postwar consensus. So the postwar consensus has been de facto ended.
Practically speaking, the only guarantee of sovereignty in the 21st century is provided by nuclear weapons, and a standing military capable of suppressing both domestic populations and at least making invasion extremely difficult or expensive. There is no longer any even tepid guarantee of human rights imposed by a collection of foreign states. And in fact, the only incentive for states to defend human rights is to defend the financing of their militaries, by defending their economies using consumer capitalism, which requires human rights in order to function.
South Korea being the world’s only substantial hold out. The Arab countries quickly switching now to consumer capitalism given the change in future oil revenue predictions. The same problem faces Russian which for all intents and purposes is an enormous gas station, where 50% of revenues depend on natural resources.
https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty
The question is somewhat interesting since both Human Rights (which are all property rights by the way), and Sovereignty are ambitions one can seek to produce not states of nature that must be abridged. However, the misleading nature of the question aside:
The ‘Postwar Consensus’ and the International Charter of Human Rights, were designed to prevent wars by requiring that all states direct policy and resources to the development of rule of law and modern economy, using largely political and economic pressure. But also military pressure if necessary – almost always provided by the USA, as the successor to, or continuation of, the British Empire.
In this sense, sovereignty was limited by the western world (America-and-Anglo-conquered-Europe) to the expansion of human rights and consumer capitalism (and mistakenly, democracy) in exchange for limited aggression against them.
This consensus held largely until Russia invaded Ukraine, set up rebel governments in the Donbas basin, seized Crimea, threatened Eastern Europe with reconquest in 2014. Since then, the combination of policies designed to weaken American political economic and military power by the Obama Administration, and the need to pivot back against the Russian threat, have exposed the Nato Alliance (the USA) as incapable of protecting member states, and the remaining member states unwilling to defend other member states – and possibly themselves. Furthermore, China’s expansion into sea territories claimed by others, and Russian expansion into disputed the arctic, have further ended the postwar consensus. So the postwar consensus has been de facto ended.
Practically speaking, the only guarantee of sovereignty in the 21st century is provided by nuclear weapons, and a standing military capable of suppressing both domestic populations and at least making invasion extremely difficult or expensive. There is no longer any even tepid guarantee of human rights imposed by a collection of foreign states. And in fact, the only incentive for states to defend human rights is to defend the financing of their militaries, by defending their economies using consumer capitalism, which requires human rights in order to function.
South Korea being the world’s only substantial hold out. The Arab countries quickly switching now to consumer capitalism given the change in future oil revenue predictions. The same problem faces Russian which for all intents and purposes is an enormous gas station, where 50% of revenues depend on natural resources.
https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty
[I]f Hadrian can build a wall to keep out the Scots there is no reason that Trump cannot build a wall to keep our the Mexicans. If Obama can push through worldwide regulation of bank accounts for tax evasion, Trump can push through national regulation of wire transfers to Mexico, or even shut down the service entirely. If we can remove islam from Spain – despite the terrible damage,and if we can implement nationalism in Europe once, we can remove islam from the west and restore nationalism again. If we reverse hispanic immigration we end the future white minority problem. If we reverse muslim immigration we end the future civil war problem. What is the price of the loss of white america? What is the price of a wall, regulation of wire transfers, and large scale deportation? Don’t let them lie to you. This is trivial work.
[I]f Hadrian can build a wall to keep out the Scots there is no reason that Trump cannot build a wall to keep our the Mexicans. If Obama can push through worldwide regulation of bank accounts for tax evasion, Trump can push through national regulation of wire transfers to Mexico, or even shut down the service entirely. If we can remove islam from Spain – despite the terrible damage,and if we can implement nationalism in Europe once, we can remove islam from the west and restore nationalism again. If we reverse hispanic immigration we end the future white minority problem. If we reverse muslim immigration we end the future civil war problem. What is the price of the loss of white america? What is the price of a wall, regulation of wire transfers, and large scale deportation? Don’t let them lie to you. This is trivial work.
[T]he moment the professional warrior could be countered by the rifleman the domestication of the aristocracy was doomed, because it was the soldier protecting his leaders instead of the leaders protecting their workers. This mirrors the evolution of the spear which allowed the alpha to be controlled, reproduction to be distributed, and women to use gossip to incite the betas to contain or kill the alphas. The development of expensive metal armor, the wheel-chariot, and the horse, restored the alpha. The rifle restored the balance. If we are to rule, then how are we to gain asymmetry and restore eugenic reproduction, and the meritocratic society?
[T]he moment the professional warrior could be countered by the rifleman the domestication of the aristocracy was doomed, because it was the soldier protecting his leaders instead of the leaders protecting their workers. This mirrors the evolution of the spear which allowed the alpha to be controlled, reproduction to be distributed, and women to use gossip to incite the betas to contain or kill the alphas. The development of expensive metal armor, the wheel-chariot, and the horse, restored the alpha. The rifle restored the balance. If we are to rule, then how are we to gain asymmetry and restore eugenic reproduction, and the meritocratic society?