GRID:

........................**CHILD**............................
.........**ANARCHIST**........VS..........**COMMUNIST** 
......(heterogeneous, no commons, just consumption)
(diasporic, tribal, imperial subjects, "the men will do it")
.....no capitalization............no capitalization
......individual.....................collective
.......inequality.....................equality
.
**MALE**......................**VS**.........................**FEMALE**
.
.......inequality.....................equality
.......familial...................collective familial
...max capitalization .............max consumption
..(landed, national, self rule, "we're the men who do it")
..........(homogenous, commons, over consumption )
.........**COMMONSIST**........VS..........**SOCIALIST** 
.........................**PARENT**............................

Humans have very comprehensible differences in instincts, and evolved to express those very comprehensible instincts, and then to make up stories justifying them.’

“THE ECONOMICS OF NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM”

  1. Commons are a non consumable capitalization from which everyone benefits – a park where you can raise small children cuts the cost of yard ownership for example. Lacking a park where you can raise small children increases the cost of homes and yards, driving people out of high investment parenting.

  2. Commons solve the problem of high investment parenting, without requiring high familial economic investment by every family. Families buy access to commons by high investment parenting, which creates incentive for the production of commons and their high returns.

  3. We use high investment parenting in the production of high investment commons. We use high investment commons to facilitate high investment parenting.

  4. This is what the middle working, and lower working classes sense is being stolen from them – the ability to use commons to produce high investment parenting. Best example is that they can’t afford to move away from malcontents by denying them access.

  5. Low investment parenting immigrants and classes, decrease the incentive to produce commons that are then consumed for purposes of other than raising families. Low investment parenting immigrants and classes increase consumption that is upwardly redistributable to the financial sector, and decrease production of commons as redistribution to

  6. Elites (advertising, media, financial, academic, political), will happily consume profits and income instead of investing in commons if lower working, working, and middle classes tolerate it.

  7. The laboring, lower working, working, middle, and increasingly upper middle class, will only tolerate it until the low hanging fruit of consumption has been exhausted, and the demand for commons is restored.

  8. Christianity is exceptional at producing respect for commons because behavior in the church environment (suppression of impulse) and the sacredness of the properties, extend to the commons.

  9. In the absence of universal christian indoctrination we must us the law to suppress consumption (destruction) of the incentive to produce high trust, ‘sacred’ commons, suitable for the raising of children. And exporting ‘exploratory’ (teen, young adult) behavior (pre-maturity) to labor (markets) sport(competition) and external (wild) commons.

WE ARE TRYING TO ARTICULATE “NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM”

by Luke Weinhagen

I have a suspicion that what many are grasping at within NatSoc is not a socialization of the economy but rather a commonization (not communization) of the government.

This is what the west was aimed at solving but without full-accounting under P’s complete description of property, government became just another marketable commodity under globalist capitalism.

What we are really trying to articulate is a form of National Commonsism.

The resistance to “socializing” any part of our civic under our current model of “governance as commodity” is it effectively means selling whatever was socialized to big interest and international agents. There is no trust.

National Commonsism == Kinship Capitalism == reciprocity protected by full-accounting

—

CD: Always count on luke for genius.

Edit

(Y’all gotta thank Luke Weinhagen for that framing. Been fussing with it myself and wasn’t until he put the frame around it that I could write the economics of it. But this concept has legs.)

“Commons-ism”