Comments on: T-Shirt slogans (#6)

By: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Quote notes (#54)

Mon, 06 Jan 2014 04:52:43 +0000

[…] on the theme of finessing the ‘no enemies to the right’ mantra, some back-to-basics essentials from Angry White […]

By: etype

etype — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 03:48:01 +0000

Thank you VXXC for your consideration. I think the Americans in their original Constitution were prescient in a few areas, and in essence the Constitution was of the most ‘neo-reactionary’ sentiment. However they did not foresee that this document could be changed without amendment by changing the people, and they imagined a solidarity between people which in a capitalist democracy does not exist, or is easily malleable by the very nature of capitalism within a democracy. There were a few fundamental errors, and in this sense the commentator Jefferson is correct – ‘All Men Are Equal Before The Law’ might better have been limited to ‘All Americans Are Equal…, and Let Others Tend Their Own Gardens Or Their Graveyards’. I think the latter, although commented on in numerous instances by the founders, was unwisely left unwritten.
Now the unwritten law is dictated by what here is accepted as the ‘Cathedral’ – This unwritten law is directed at it’s previous formulation, not the Constitution. ‘All men are equal before the law’ has become the rope with which to bind and hang us. In this sense the commentator Jefferson is correct.

The unwritten law of the ‘Cathedral’ is similar to what is known as Jante’s law as defined by Sandemose :

You’re not to think you are anything special.
You’re not to think you are as good as us.
You’re not to think you are smarter than us.
You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than us.
You’re not to think you know more than us.
You’re not to think you are more important than us.
You’re not to think you are good at anything.
You’re not to laugh at us.
You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
You’re not to think you can teach us anything.

and finally:

Maybe you don’t think I know a few things about you?

By: VXXC

VXXC — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:17:29 +0000

The Laws themselves should be few and equal.

There is an entire world beyond Law and Government.

We should fight for a world where at least Americans* can discover it again.

As we currently labor under a government that wishes to tell us how to defaecate and tax us for breathing, has politicized every physical aspect of us from color to sex to food to weight, that has more laws than our magnificent machines can count …we may have difficulty imagining a world where the government and laws are simple, small and commonsense. And few.

We are all products of the not yet ended interminable and bloody 20th century. Prior to which at least Americans seldom were animated about national affairs, absolutely not on a daily basis.

We don’t need laws that differentiate every aspect from the more Right View instead of the Prog Left view. Haven’t we all had enough?

* Lo – if the American Cathedral falls, the rest are free.

EType is correct.

By: etype

etype — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:01:36 +0000

I see the point you’re trying to make, but with respect I disagree. I’m against preferences. I think there should be few laws, and those laws should be excessively few in number and simple – they should apply with equal effect to the lowest or highest. ‘Not-one-size-fits-all’ law is what we see today in the name of ‘equality before the law’, with the actual access to justice ruled by power of one’s wallet. If one is wealthy, one doesn’t have a superior level of laws, but superior access, which amounts to the same thing. This is a degraded state of affairs fit only for a nation of dogs.

By: Jefferson

Jefferson — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 16:03:38 +0000

Your oversimplification does you a disservice, sir. The tautology I cite needs reiteration, since much of this thread seems to be men wanting to write laws for a nation that does not abide by written laws. “In the West laws are still made by men, but the unwritten laws are made by and for women, foreign minorities and the mob – which leads not to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the degradation and eventual destruction of all.” There are, obviously, no true (Scots) men making our laws, otherwise we wouldn’t find ourselves in this predicament.

Furthermore, your response to my comment casts doubt on your previous post.The best men make laws that fit the circumstances, not one-size fits all. This is how it’s been through history, and the last century+’s attempts to squeeze all humanity into one bucket has been to the detriment of all.

By: etype

etype — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 02:42:54 +0000

@Jefferson
Thank you for your well-considered reply. “A nation of laws writes laws to fit the men. A nation of men determines the law as appropriate in a given circumstance. “ is a tautology if you examine it in blank, impartial terms. But crediting your intelligence and viewing your statement in partial terms, your statement bears an important truth; it is not so much for us to presume to legislate the written law, as these things generally happen after the fact and are not so important if in good faith; it is the unwritten law and uncompromising fidelity to the unwritten law which calls for reaction – for it is the unwritten law that the nation of men legislate, and is the duty and right they must yield to no one. In the West laws are still made by men, but the unwritten laws are made by and for women, foreign minorities and the mob – which leads not to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but the degradation and eventual destruction of all. The ‘unwritten law’ is ours to bear or to fail.
If we are not ourselves the ‘best men’, but instead a bunch of idiots who like to write comments declaring our superior intelligence and priority (ie.when someone claims ‘superior intelligence or priority’ in the comments section on an internet forum – you can accurately subtract 15% points from their actual intelligence – 25% points if made on a forum that uses a black background and white text…) then one should just shut the fuck up – for you are dealing again with nothing more than the mob looking to be first to exhaust the nations resources.

By: Jefferson

Jefferson — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 15:10:32 +0000

A nation of laws writes laws to fit the men. A nation of men determines the law as appropriate in a given circumstance. We’re neither right now. If we’re to become a nation of men, we shouldn’t have a position statement on drugs (or any of the other things we’ve been quibbling over of late). It is unlikely that anyone here will be in charge if and when the changes come, so we ought be concerned with making sure that the best men are the ones who take over, anything beyond that is not for us to decide.

By: Lesser Bull

Lesser Bull — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:28:39 +0000

The latter.

By: etype

etype — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 04:50:55 +0000

This ‘laws for them’ and ‘law of privilege or priority’ for ‘us’ [sic] is both delusional and unworkable… as has been well demonstrated throughout man’s history. Many seem to respond to the idea of ‘Neo-reaction’ as a type of political, swords and dungeons computer game which they expect is set on it’s easiest, fantasy level (proclaiming one’s affiliate insurmountable intelligence/ superiority ‘on the internet’ etc.) in expectation they may go around fucking shit up with only token resistance.

Disparage ‘Progressivism’ all you want – you are fools to underestimate it… or just fools, period ‘.’

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 01:11:16 +0000

@Lesser Bull:
“Your cladistic analysis is to the purpose.”

I don’t understand that sentence. Are you saying cladistic analysis is left-wing, or saying that it can be used to show that neoreaction is left-wing?