Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

William Butchman

re: —“I see sovereignty as the strategy, and the heroic narrative in myth, religion, literature, history… and science, as the western narrative.”— Curt Doolittle

I posit that the NSDAP did that. But they had a positive value system which failed when validated against the Darwinian test. I think that sovereignty via heroism can be pursued in many ways, but the outcome will vary greatly based on the positive value system… something via negative cannot provide.

Curt Doolittle

correct. and something we cannot KNOW. Therefore we require a market for via-positiva value systems, so that we calculate by trial and error the possibility that at least one of them will work.

Which is saying the same thing EXCEPT I intuit (right or wrong) that you (like most) desire a monopoly narrative, not a market for them.

Via negativa, sovereignty, and transcendence are enough for those who possess agency, because the need for anything ELSE is an admission of the lack of agency.

But few men possess agency. Even in this group where we have many smart people that number is in the low single digits.

The rest of men want only (a) convfirmation that their narrative, the narrative needed for their level of agency, is ‘good’. (b) the method of arguing against competing narratives with lower or higher agency.

I think that like reproductive value, like class, like intelligence, we must understand that agency is another trait that separates us – and that we seek to deny until we can no longer deny it.

My advocacy of natural law (truth), and soverignty, is not to advance our people as much as it is to prevent the harm to our people by those who would make the same excuses (arguments) as a means of distributing (selling) another parasitic and predatory narrative as did the jews and teh christians and muslims, and buddhists.

So the man lacking sovereignty seeks via positiva, and the man possessing sovereignty seeks via negativa – there is nothing else for the sovereign to SEEK.

The powerful are so becaue of correspondence. They do not need license, they need to eliminate competitors.

There are many layers of weakness (lack of agency) below sovergithy. we must give them the tools to transcend.

If they do not want those tools we must force them or exterminate them out of defense. If they cannot use the tools we must manufacture them (narratives) that support them.

This is the unstated conundrum you and Bill Joslin are struggling with.

To which the uncomfortable answer is evident, but requires intellectual honesty.

The answer is sovereignty, natural law, and via negativa. But there are very few capable of it. Even if it is the only means of transcendence and therefore production. All other alternatives are not methods of transcendence and production, but of decline, and consumption.

Accepting this is probably the one thing you’d both need to do in order to lead those who share your intuitions, rather than require a leader with those intuitions who had made that acceptance.

Love always.