1) In the 1980’s we enacted major changes in the legal system. This is what redu

1) In the 1980’s we enacted major changes in the legal system. This is what reduced litigation. It was adequate but not beneficial. IN the previous decades due to the Jewish migration to the west we enacted devolutions of our law. In the previous century we enacted devolutions.

2) As far as I know we are restoring (reversing) the common law prior to those ‘enlightenment’ modifications. and correcting the problem of the inability to demarcate free speech from free testifiable and reciprocal speech.

3) The traditional method by which these laws are tested are by jurists the way medical procedures are tested by doctors. By testing how we would handle present cases under the new law. This is indifferent from how the supreme court handles cases today.

4) However, there is very little opportunity to implement half measures. instead it is far better to have the top jurists ‘test’ the arguments against the body of historical cases and present cases. This has proven effective in the past.

5) What I have suggested is that we are very clear about the scope of such constraints, and that we provide special dispensation for christianity. And expressly state that we are attacking the abrahamic method of deceit. (which is in the documents already).

6) But all law is open to incremental application and incremental revision. So in the end we are left with the choice between attempting to suppress the Marxist-pomo-woke destruction of the west or the consequences of doing so. There are no free rides. Only tradeoffs.