Between Ethics and Intent We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse. Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell. But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of *intent*, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality". And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the *intent* and *outcomes* of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great *multitude* of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality. It is to say *intent*, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent *supersedes* the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it. It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act *according* to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later. To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very *intent* contained in said acts, *propose* a future set of beliefs. To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them. This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings *and common men*." This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society. And a truly free people, we must and can *only* conclude, *ought* to *want* and *believe utterly and completely* that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.