STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTS Civic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Strategy for Engaging with Civic Nationalists
STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTS Civic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.
-
Do We Need to Be United Around Via-Positivas (“Should Do”)? and Should It Be “all About Race?”
DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?” (Answer to a couple of good questions.) Reciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while nonchristians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the nonchristians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice): 1. Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.) 2. Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.) This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).
-
Do We Need to Be United Around Via-Positivas (“Should Do”)? and Should It Be “all About Race?”
DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?” (Answer to a couple of good questions.) Reciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while nonchristians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the nonchristians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice): 1. Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.) 2. Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.) This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).
-
Yes, Norms Are Common Property
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
As long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you and norms will be more to your liking.
-
Yes, Norms Are Common Property
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
As long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you and norms will be more to your liking.
-
Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways
WHY WE NEED TO PEACEFULLY SEPARATE AND LET EACHOTHER GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS There are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) Developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.
-
Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways
WHY WE NEED TO PEACEFULLY SEPARATE AND LET EACHOTHER GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS There are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) Developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.
-
Sovereigntarianism
SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Capitalism creates an economic market producing a war of all against all. Socialism creates a political market producing a war of all against all. Rule of law by Reciprocity, Reciprocal insurance of Sovereignty, and paying the high cost of Heroism and Excellence, Truth and Duty, and Paternalism and Charity, create the optimum polity without the extremes of capitalism or socialism at the cost of total suppression of the irreciprocal and false, under that rule of law by reciprocity and reciprocal insurance. Reciprocal insurance of Sovereignty Rule of Law by Reciprocity Heroism and Excellence (Beauty) Truth and Duty Paternalism and Charity We create commons, accumulate capital, and its multipliers. The enemy consumes like locusts and creates only temporary economic velocity. These are very expensive commons because they require we trust one another to invest in a commons that will not be consumed – because every man is a father, sheriff, warrior, and if necessary, judge of the commons and will defend it. We must separate and return to speciation, or the consumption of accumulated material, institutional, informational, genetic, and planetary capital will be consumed by the enemy.
-
The Outstanding Issue of The Second American Constitution
THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE OF THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTION The issue in the first american constitution was the exception of slavery. The issue in the second american constitution will be the exception of christianity. I’m just recording that this exception, like the first one, is necessary, but will lead to the same problems, without a continuation of the reformation of christianity. We have at least Religious, Fascist, Traditional, Constitutional, Ratio-economic, and Scientific ‘factions’ that we must satisfy in order to form a more perfect union. Mine must sacrifice tolerance for christian abrahamism, the fascists must tolerate monarchy via negativa instead of a strong man via positiva, and the christians must tolerate the protestantization of christianity as a folk religion, the ongoing decline (3rd Worlding) of the catholic church, and our inability to restore churches to control of family law and education because of their doctrine, in exchange for defense by the state, advocacy by the state, and competition between theological, moral, rational, and scientific practices of christianity and our ancient germanic and slavic religions of nature and the hearth. In exchange we all get restoration of our nation state(s), and the permanent destruction of the second abrahamic attack on western civilization – all civilization for that matter, by a monopoly religion of the state. HIERARCHY OF LAWS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION (TRUTH) … > Physical Laws … … > Heathen (Pagan) Law of War … … … > Natural Law of Cooperation: Reciprocity … … … … > Christian Law Of Investment in Cooperation