“TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE By Zachary Miller, Esq. The drafter of the 14th Amendmentâs Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller (via Brandon Hayes )
Form: Excerpt
-
Rump Opens the Door to Natural Law Jurisprudence:
“TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE By Zachary Miller, Esq. The drafter of the 14th Amendmentâs Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller (via Brandon Hayes )
-
The Trump agenda is dead in its tracks
by Chris Novalis I don’t think anyone realizes what losing the House means: The Trump agenda is dead in its tracks and the probability of Civil War just increased exponentially. The traitors in the swamp will operate without impunity. This is the nightmare scenario we have to look forward to: First, on the domestic political front, while Democrats and their MSM echo chamber have cooled down talk of impeaching Trump, it will return with a vengeance on November 7 (coincidentally, Great October Socialist Revolution Day) if the House changes hands. In contrast to the GOPâs dithering in the area of investigations and hearings relevant to the US-UK Deep State conspiracy to overturn the 2016 election (which will be buried forever), the Democrats will be utterly ruthless in using their power with the single-minded purpose of getting Trump out of office before 2020. They wonât waste much time on the phony Russian âcollusionâ story (Robert Muellerâs report will be an obscenely expensive dud), theyâll focus like a laser on getting Trumpâs tax returns and dredging up anything they can from his long involvement in the sharp-elbowed, dog-eat-dog world of New York property development and construction, confident they can find something that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. (Some racist language couldnât hurt, either.) The model will be Richard Nixonâs Vice President Spiro Agnew, who was forced out of office on charges relating to his time in Maryland politics years earlier. Even the GOPâs retention of the Senate would be far from a guarantee that Trump wonât be removed. Itâs easily foreseeable that a dozen-plus Republican Senators would be thrilled to get rid of Trump and restore the partyâs status quo ante with Mike Pence in the Oval Office. As with Nixon, Republicans will panic at whatever dirt the Democrats dig up and demand Trump resign for the âgood of the country and the party,â as opposed to the way Democrats formed a protective phalanx around Bill Clinton. Unlike Nixon, Trump might choose to fight it out in the Senate and might even prevail. In any case, a change in control of just one chamber means an extended political crisis that will keep Trump boxed in and perpetually on the defensive. Second, for Trumpâs supporters and other dissenters from the Regime of Certified Victims, the walls will continue to close in. The digital ghettoization of alternative views to âprotect our democracyâ from supposed outside meddling conflated with âhate onlineâ will accelerate, with social media a particular target for censorship. The Deep Stateâs intelligence and law enforcement organs will step up actions to penalize any resistance to Leftwing violence, while perpetrators of such violence will rampage with impunity. Trump has done nothing to protect free speech online or in public places while his enemies continue to contract the space for both â but things can and likely will get much, much worse if the Democrats feel the wind at their back after next week. Such vestigial protections of religion, free speech, right to bears arms, and others that we still possess â for now â arenât likely to survive much longer as the edifice of the old America continues to crumble under the malfeasance of the very Executive, Legislative, and Judicial officials who pretend to be its custodians. Third and most ominously, chances of a major war could increase exponentially. If Trump is fighting for his life, chances of purging his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team will go from slim to none. Any hope of a national interest-based policy along the lines Trump promised in 2016 â and which still seems to be his personal preference â will be gone. Thankfully, South Koreaâs President Moon Jae-in has run with the ball through last yearâs opening and hopefully the momentum for peace in Northeast Asia will be self-sustaining. With any luck, the Khashoggi imbroglio between Washington and Riyadh will lead to Americaâs âdownplaying and eventually abandoning the anti-Iranian obsession that has so far overshadowed our regional policyâ and to an end the carnage in Yemen, even as the Syria war lurches toward resolution. Still, the US remains addicted to ever-increasing sanctions, and despite warnings from both Russia and China that they are prepared for war â warnings virtually ignored by the US media and political class â the US keeps pressing on all fronts: outer space, the Arctic, Europe (withdrawal from the INF treaty), Ukraine, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, Xinjiang, and elsewhere. Trump is expected to meet with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping following the US election, but they may have to conclude that he is not capable of restraining the war machine nominally under his command and will plan accordingly.
-
Against Absolutists
AGAINST ABSOLUTISTS
by Chris Moyer
(updated: added chris’ name. not sure how I missed it. fixed it. ) Couldn’t sleep and hashed some of my thoughts out on the recent discussion with the absolutists. If you don’t mind, let me know what you think. On absolutism and propertarianism: Absolutist: Does the non-declarative (intuitionalistic) actions of the monarch need to be justified? Answer: Propertarianism as a system is designed for prosecution via. negativa to prevent the CONTINUATION of harmful action. The monarch when using intuitionalistic means of decidability in the moment cannot rely on post-hoc prosecutionary language that categorizes the emergent after the fact. So no, the non-declarative does not need to be justified in its emergence (I think this is impossible). However I suspect that we can narrow down the mechanisms at play which allow for a person of a certain type to be successfully intuitionalistic. By which the mechanisms are largely unconscious and are carried down intergenerational via. our genetics. This by admission by no way shape or form dismisses the purpose of propertarianism as a prosecutionary system. This point in no way shape or form gives credit to the critique offered by absolutists that âAnglo Liberal Ontologyâ is invalid, but rather that it is a post-hoc system that is complementary to the intuitionalistic positiva mode of actions taken. It is by the continuation of this view of science as the categorization of the emergent into tangible concepts that propertarianism attempts to solve the issue of social and political organization. Propertarian frame thinking: Phenomena: Absolutists critique Propertarianism as a post-hoc prosecutorial language. Incentive: It is my opinion that this criticism occurs in the event that propertarianism doesn’t offer a means to overcome nihilism. Only an explanation of the empirical phenomena. Notes on the conversation: Absolutists have failed to demonstrate how language is used for anything other than measurement. A shout or call to attention is a measurement of a change in state. A command is a measurement of direction in reaction to a change is state. Both these examples were used during the discussion. Absolutists have failed to offer a fair argument against propertarianism and instead offer a strawman of Curt’s work while refusing to acknowledge that Curt has set his own limits on the scope of Propertarianism as a system. Criticizing Propertarianism on its self set limits is redundant Absolutists still engage in categorical shaming. In that their largest critique is that Propertarianism belongs to an ontologically liberal category and that it is somehow lame because of that. It is also then implied that being reactionary as a category is cool or socially better. This is childish. The strongest point put forth by the Absolutists (to me) is the methods of decidability that are engaged upon by a true sovereign to develop a moral code. As in reciprocity at some level is only valuable to engage in if other subjects have something to offer. This, from what I can tell, does not go against propertarianism; but should be fleshed out a little bit better (to me). Absolutists appeal to the complexity of the mechanism that take place in the mode of intuitionalistic decidability rather than providing an argument against propertarianism. They also offer little insight into the complex mechanism that are in effect during the process. Perhaps I need to dive deeper than I already have into GA, but I need to be convinced this isn’t going to be a waste of time. Absolutists and Generative Anthropologists appeal to the fact that language is in fact generative the same way a post modernist would appeal to the fact that categories of arbitrary precision are generative. All things are generative as the process of progressive disambiguation; or the attempts to overcome entropy by creating a more complex model for explaining phenomena. Linguistics have no inherent value besides measurement and those measurements are contextual and depend upon reciprocity of meaning to convey the empirically observable. -
The Trump agenda is dead in its tracks
by Chris Novalis I don’t think anyone realizes what losing the House means: The Trump agenda is dead in its tracks and the probability of Civil War just increased exponentially. The traitors in the swamp will operate without impunity. This is the nightmare scenario we have to look forward to: First, on the domestic political front, while Democrats and their MSM echo chamber have cooled down talk of impeaching Trump, it will return with a vengeance on November 7 (coincidentally, Great October Socialist Revolution Day) if the House changes hands. In contrast to the GOPâs dithering in the area of investigations and hearings relevant to the US-UK Deep State conspiracy to overturn the 2016 election (which will be buried forever), the Democrats will be utterly ruthless in using their power with the single-minded purpose of getting Trump out of office before 2020. They wonât waste much time on the phony Russian âcollusionâ story (Robert Muellerâs report will be an obscenely expensive dud), theyâll focus like a laser on getting Trumpâs tax returns and dredging up anything they can from his long involvement in the sharp-elbowed, dog-eat-dog world of New York property development and construction, confident they can find something that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. (Some racist language couldnât hurt, either.) The model will be Richard Nixonâs Vice President Spiro Agnew, who was forced out of office on charges relating to his time in Maryland politics years earlier. Even the GOPâs retention of the Senate would be far from a guarantee that Trump wonât be removed. Itâs easily foreseeable that a dozen-plus Republican Senators would be thrilled to get rid of Trump and restore the partyâs status quo ante with Mike Pence in the Oval Office. As with Nixon, Republicans will panic at whatever dirt the Democrats dig up and demand Trump resign for the âgood of the country and the party,â as opposed to the way Democrats formed a protective phalanx around Bill Clinton. Unlike Nixon, Trump might choose to fight it out in the Senate and might even prevail. In any case, a change in control of just one chamber means an extended political crisis that will keep Trump boxed in and perpetually on the defensive. Second, for Trumpâs supporters and other dissenters from the Regime of Certified Victims, the walls will continue to close in. The digital ghettoization of alternative views to âprotect our democracyâ from supposed outside meddling conflated with âhate onlineâ will accelerate, with social media a particular target for censorship. The Deep Stateâs intelligence and law enforcement organs will step up actions to penalize any resistance to Leftwing violence, while perpetrators of such violence will rampage with impunity. Trump has done nothing to protect free speech online or in public places while his enemies continue to contract the space for both â but things can and likely will get much, much worse if the Democrats feel the wind at their back after next week. Such vestigial protections of religion, free speech, right to bears arms, and others that we still possess â for now â arenât likely to survive much longer as the edifice of the old America continues to crumble under the malfeasance of the very Executive, Legislative, and Judicial officials who pretend to be its custodians. Third and most ominously, chances of a major war could increase exponentially. If Trump is fighting for his life, chances of purging his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team will go from slim to none. Any hope of a national interest-based policy along the lines Trump promised in 2016 â and which still seems to be his personal preference â will be gone. Thankfully, South Koreaâs President Moon Jae-in has run with the ball through last yearâs opening and hopefully the momentum for peace in Northeast Asia will be self-sustaining. With any luck, the Khashoggi imbroglio between Washington and Riyadh will lead to Americaâs âdownplaying and eventually abandoning the anti-Iranian obsession that has so far overshadowed our regional policyâ and to an end the carnage in Yemen, even as the Syria war lurches toward resolution. Still, the US remains addicted to ever-increasing sanctions, and despite warnings from both Russia and China that they are prepared for war â warnings virtually ignored by the US media and political class â the US keeps pressing on all fronts: outer space, the Arctic, Europe (withdrawal from the INF treaty), Ukraine, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, Xinjiang, and elsewhere. Trump is expected to meet with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping following the US election, but they may have to conclude that he is not capable of restraining the war machine nominally under his command and will plan accordingly.
-
NATURAL RELIGION: THE AESIR-VANIR WAR by @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide]
NATURAL RELIGION: THE AESIR-VANIR WAR
by @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide]
(must read, core concepts)
Man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. This historical phase—initiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called ‘Biopolitical Revolution’—is extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx ‘the end of primitive communist society,’ by Sigmund Freud ‘the killing of the primal father,’ and by Claude Lévi-Strauss ‘the separation between Nature and Culture.’
Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the gods—as related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War.
The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding war—which set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic era—Odin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, ‘domesticated’ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the ‘domestication of nature’ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society.
Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of ‘magic’ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The former—‘preying’ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating man—assert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, ‘producing’ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as ‘self-domesticated’ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their ‘wealth’ (symbolised by Gullweig’s gold).
This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. ‘Man-subject,’ who continues to exercise ‘magic’ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: ‘man-object.’ The domesticating ‘magic’ is exercised on man-object from without—and the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this ‘religious’ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to ‘domesticating’ nature: that is, to the production of goods.
The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecism—contractual arrangement—following a ‘war of foundation.’ The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible god—exercising a ‘magic’ constriction—and a beneficent guarantor of ‘contracts.’ From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 17:18:00 UTC
-
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD by Daniel Gurpide (must read, important concepts) M
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts)
Man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. This historical phase—initiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called ‘Biopolitical Revolution’—is extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx ‘the end of primitive communist society,’ by Sigmund Freud ‘the killing of the primal father,’ and by Claude Lévi-Strauss ‘the separation between Nature and Culture.’
Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the gods—as related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War.
The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding war—which set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic era—Odin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, ‘domesticated’ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the ‘domestication of nature’ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society.
Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of ‘magic’ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The former—‘preying’ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating man—assert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, ‘producing’ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as ‘self-domesticated’ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their ‘wealth’ (symbolised by Gullweig’s gold).
This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. ‘Man-subject,’ who continues to exercise ‘magic’ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: ‘man-object.’ The domesticating ‘magic’ is exercised on man-object from without—and the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this ‘religious’ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to ‘domesticating’ nature: that is, to the production of goods.
The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecism—contractual arrangement—following a ‘war of foundation.’ The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible god—exercising a ‘magic’ constriction—and a beneficent guarantor of ‘contracts.’ From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 16:51:00 UTC
-
The Current Order Understood
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts) Manâs taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the massâby the elite. This historical phaseâinitiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called âBiopolitical Revolutionââis extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx âthe end of primitive communist society,â by Sigmund Freud âthe killing of the primal father,â and by Claude Lévi-Strauss âthe separation between Nature and Culture.â Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the godsâas related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War. The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding warâwhich set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic eraâOdin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, âdomesticatedâ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the âdomestication of natureâ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society. Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of âmagicâ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The formerââpreyingâ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating manâassert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, âproducingâ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as âself-domesticatedâ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their âwealthâ (symbolised by Gullweigâs gold). This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. âMan-subject,â who continues to exercise âmagicâ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: âman-object.â The domesticating âmagicâ is exercised on man-object from withoutâand the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this âreligiousâ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to âdomesticatingâ nature: that is, to the production of goods. The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecismâcontractual arrangementâfollowing a âwar of foundation.â The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible godâexercising a âmagicâ constrictionâand a beneficent guarantor of âcontracts.â From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans. -
An Intimate Relation Between the Work of Wagner and Of Nietzsche
—“There is an intimate relation between the work of Wagner and of Nietzsche. It is important to stress this relation, for Nietzsche himself made a major manoeuvre of distraction, intending to demonstrateâperhaps first of all to himselfâthat his work was independent of, and even opposed to, that of Richard Wagner. This exercise of concealment has strongly influenced the judgement of philosophers and intellectuals, who are naturally inclined to pay more attention to the âintellectualâ work of Nietzsche than to Wagnerâs âartisticâ work.”— Daniel Gurpide
-
The Current Order Understood
THE CURRENT ORDER UNDERSTOOD
by Daniel Gurpide
(must read, important concepts) Manâs taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the massâby the elite. This historical phaseâinitiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called âBiopolitical Revolutionââis extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx âthe end of primitive communist society,â by Sigmund Freud âthe killing of the primal father,â and by Claude Lévi-Strauss âthe separation between Nature and Culture.â Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the godsâas related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War. The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding warâwhich set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic eraâOdin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, âdomesticatedâ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the âdomestication of natureâ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society. Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of âmagicâ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The formerââpreyingâ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating manâassert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, âproducingâ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as âself-domesticatedâ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their âwealthâ (symbolised by Gullweigâs gold). This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. âMan-subject,â who continues to exercise âmagicâ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: âman-object.â The domesticating âmagicâ is exercised on man-object from withoutâand the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this âreligiousâ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to âdomesticatingâ nature: that is, to the production of goods. The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecismâcontractual arrangementâfollowing a âwar of foundation.â The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible godâexercising a âmagicâ constrictionâand a beneficent guarantor of âcontracts.â From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.