Twitter cuts (#37)

Amazed not have heard this said anything like as elegantly before:

December 3, 2015admin 18 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Realism

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

18 Responses to this entry

  • Twitter cuts (#37) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 12:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Its surely clever rhetoric and reminds the targets of the propaganda campaign about american law which they would like forgotten But “endowed by their creator” and “inalienable rights”, were pretty elegant. And I also think the original go a level deeper.
    The newer version implies but isnt clear on the source of the right, is it granted by the gun owner to himself through the power of his arms and can there fore be nullified by disarming him, or is it a “natural right” [either god given or ancient custom] which disarming him would only create a crime needing justice. The left would love to frame it this way; a bunch of angry white male gun nuts who thought they had a right were schooled by the bigger guns of the left this was done on the gun nuts own terms of pry then from my cold dead hands.

    I was under the impression around here you were not big on “rights”, while I get it may be that rights are in practice granted through force and the state is usually the greatest force, as an american conservative Im not conceding that right to the greater power of the state even rhetorically,my right to bear arms is either a natural [small n] right of any organism to defend itself or its a god given right of the people who built a city upon a hill, as you wish. There fore it is not up for discussion. Which the NRA seems to get and be able to make politicians fear. The state has as much right to regulate my arms as it has to pimping my daughter or enslaving me. It might get away with it temporarily but its never going to grant me a right to not pimp my daughter or be enslaved the insult of even suggesting such a thing would require a public horsewhipping at least if not a duel.

    The problem with the olld version is the conflation of divine and natural rights while clever as long as most people believe in some sort of creator it weakens when most dont, the other half of the basis is weakened when the ancient customs of europe have long gone by the wayside.All thats really left is jeffersons words and yet here we are in the counter revolution camp.
    If we had a king and his son was a evil dud we need armed sovereign citizens, if we had a cameral state we need a crypto lock what better lock than armed american men. If we want extreme capitalism we need a way to defend it from the state the people and other capitalists we need a absolute right of property that starts with self ownership. There is no way real men are going to relinquish even more control to the state after this fiasco.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I was under the impression around here you were not big on ‘rights’ …” — isn’t that the point? The ‘right’ to bear arms is a surface effect of distributed armament.

    [Reply]

    CuiPertinebit Reply:

    “I was under the impression around here you were not big on ‘rights’ …”

    I can’t speak for Neoreaction, so much as for traditional Reaction, as found in the Catholic Magisterium.

    That view opposes “rights” abstracted from objective morality (i.e., that which is Right), and falsely proffered as though they were rooted in “human dignity.” I am aware that Vatican II, convoked and concluded under excommunicated persons masquerading as popes, taught contrary to this, and this explains the rapid apostasy of all the formerly Catholic institutions immediately thereafter. The Catholic Church still exists, but the thing operating in the Vatican currently is a usurper – an “antichrist,” if you will.

    To illustrate actual Catholic teaching: objectively, there is no right to disseminate pernicious philosophies and moral corruption in society. So “freedom of the press,” and “free speech,” understood as abstract rights for people and the press to say whatever they like on whatever topic in whatever manner with complete immunity from state interference, no, this is folly and has been solemnly condemned. If people start advocating heinous sins and crimes, or start a “political philosophy” that involves robbing some people on behalf of others, the state would have a right – actually, an obligation – to interfere and to silence them. This obligation can only be mitigated by a compelling factor in consideration of the common and greater good.

    Where the right to defend one’s life exists, and where there is no compelling moral impediment, the right to bear arms does exist for free-born citizens. This principle would be much clearer if we did not live in such a secure place and time (though that may be ending). It would be the height of cruelty and insanity to expect the citizens of 9th century England to be totally unarmed. But, obviously, resident aliens, ethnic minorities, slaves, the mentally ill, proven criminals, etc., are in a different situation. Some of these people are not the masters of their own lives, some are not capable of defending themselves, some have a right to defend themselves, perhaps in their own communities and homes with small and private arms, but not to own heavier weapons or to bear arms freely about wherever they go, etc.

    A Reactionary recognizes that there are some, authentic Rights. They are rooted in what is Right, and both King and Pauper should be constrained thereto; neither does the state serve the people, nor the people the state, but rather, the King is the Father of his People, and the whole household, which he manages, serves God and the good. In that context, certain rights exist; but blanket “human rights” in abstraction from objective morality, do not exist.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    I don’t get the propensity for utilizing capitalized general terms. Does it grant any more credence to the argument than it would otherwise?

    CuiPertinebit Reply:

    I think I get it from German and reading a lot of older books, where that sort of thing is done. Yes, it lends a semantic emphasis (usually of honour or importance) to certain terms which would we would otherwise produce with difficulty.

    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 2:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#37) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 4:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lex Corvus Says:

    People often say “right” when they just mean “good idea.” But this reflects sloppy thinking. All rights are political. Whether having the right to bear arms is a good idea or not is independent of the 2nd Amendment, but the right itself is granted by the government’s enforcement of that amendment.

    Believing there’s some magical list of “rights”—with new discoveries all the time (“Hey, it says ‘gay marriage’ here!”)—is a standard error of the ruling political ideology. Don’t fall for it. It doesn’t matter if you have a “right” when there’s no one to enforce it. That’s why all rights are political.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Simone Weil needs to be rediscovered. Rights derive from duties.

    [Reply]

    RJL Reply:

    Weil? Weil’s interesting. Far too much self-sacrifice to be useful for nrx.

    The better bet here is to read Jeremy Bentham. First serious legal positivist and theoriser of rights.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    In a canon filled with autistic philosophers, Bentham is arguably the most autistic of all.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Transparent desire to impose duties on others.

    Look I know you spend a lot of time around parasites, but kindly try to resist parasite philosophy.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    On the contrary – acknowledging that any right entails a corresponding duty reduces the incentive to invoke all sorts of rights whilly nilly as progressives are prone to do.

    Perhaps you should actually interpret what’s being stated before you swan around accusing others of being parasites. The only parasites are those who think you can have a free lunch and that rights can be enjoyed without acknowledging the corresponding duties (the burden of which is, these days, increasingly borne by someone other than the one demanding those rights. Right to contaception? Whose taxes does that come out of?)

    Alrenous Reply:

    It instead creates the incentive to invoke duties willy nilly, such as the duty to provide contraception, and the corresponding right of getting a gold star.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    If you pay attention you’ll notice that SJWs never invoke duties, only rights, and they do their utmost to avoid mentioning who will pay.

    Exfernal Reply:

    I would prefer competency to wield them instead.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 3rd, 2015 at 5:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Skilluminati Says:

    That was an actual meme-bomb. Gonna be unpacking that puppy for awhile.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 12:07 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    We’re armed and going to stay that way.

    Any other course is madness and suicide.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 2:43 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment