Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1550587990 Timestamp)


Nothing. changed. at. all.

0. It’s not possible for ordinary people to distinguish between (a) the law proper, and (b) the constitutional implementation of that law as federating contract, and (c) the regional or local law as adaptive to tradition and norm, where local constitutions that differ according to local preference (demand).

So no matter how we preface it, we have a body politic indoctrinated into ideal thought and we are in a position where we must appeal to lowest common denominator in order to have the numbers to obtain power to demand constitutional reform (restoration of natural rights under natural law.)

Disappointing but expected. Means we should continue to selectively include the ‘smart folk’ and work on the solution and disassociate from and ignore the non-intellectual class as the ‘voice of reason’ between left and right “in the interests of the center”.

SPECIFY THE FRAME OF THE ANSWER (Despite frustrating the audience.)
1. I have to be very clear and preface every answer with whether they want the answer according to “the law”, a federal constitution(insurer of last resort limited to real property (private and public), a state constitution or a local constitution not limited to real property (including norms and commons). People think I’m waffling because they want a religion, philosophy, or ideology that isn’t a division of labor and purvey. But no matter what I do I end up with ‘in a propertarian world…?” (which is meaningless), rather than ‘with propertarianism can we construct….?” We can construct anything. There are at least three possible means of running a government given our current condition.

2. In explanations I need to start at the top down (vision) rather than bottom up (science) and say that P, at least for european peoples, would recommend, because of our genetics and cultures, that we restore the many states if not city states of europe. And that MOST of the time when I am talking I am recommending that solution. HOWEVER, we can (a) do so and secede, we can (b) simply devolve the federal government and sort without seceding, or (c)we can attempt to take over the federal government and enforce the devolution of the federal scope of responsibilities and devolve non-real-property (everything but insurer of last resort) to the states. In other words, P IS TOOLKIT. With the P TOOLKIT I am proposing one of a nearly infinite number of constitutions for different peoples.

3. Religiosity/Rationality/Science and class/intelligence, religious heritage/tradition, training into different sects, There exists no immediate solution to the problem of our religions other than prohibiting alien religions, providing incentives, and letting time continue to run its course. Why? Just as animals imprint we behave similarly thru training that is continuously reinforced and justified. And only significant adaptive opportunity or pressure alters this training. Those of us who are more naturally scandinavian will migrate one way, those more continental another, and those more mediterranean or slavic another, and that will simply mean the preservation of our cults. The problem is not there, but in eliminating further jewish and muslim damage to the civilization.

4. For my part it is better to truncate the constitutional section on religion, not try to save or reform the religion, expand education, expand festivals and holidays, and let natural evolution take its course in the production of educational differences that are expressible as religious differences. In other words it is not possible to restore the centrality of the church to the polity. Without the compromise of truth, there is no means by which the faithful and the rational can be institutionally unified.

5. I think P is better for normies ‘that want to get along’ than for the right wing and left wing fringe. And pivoting away from the fringe to the mainstream is something we should have done a bit earlier, but are now only able to. Even though I think we are not ready.

Underlying biological imperatives.
… (F) – Religious fringe (Feminine/Submission),
… (aM) – Anarchic fringe(Exchange).
… (eM) – Authoritarian Fringe(Masculine/Dominance),

All of these fringes look for rules by which they can avoid negotiation and compromise with people (monopolies). Each express their bias in method of argument (paradigm and vocabulary) as well as masculine libertarian or feminine application of (eM) Established-Masculine-Threat, (aM)Ascendent-Masculine-Exchange-Boycott, or (F)Feminine-Undermining.

In other words genetics rule and the fringes cannot compromise leaving the mainstream and mainstream incentives as the optimum and letting the fringes drive demand for a viable solution to coming conflict. This disassociates us further from the fringe and lowers resistance to the spread of the movement.

However, this occurs at the expense of an increase in the cost and time of distribution. And alters the pitch somewhat to appeal to the mainstream leaving only the far left as an opponent.


(PS: And y’all thought I was just trolling christians…..)

Leave a Reply