Form: Thread

WE NEED A CONVENTION OF THE STATES, AN UPRISING, OR A CIVIL WAR TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME REFORMS. BUT WHAT REFORMS?
Tim Pool, (All),
(a) We need statesmen with institutional, national, and international experience to compete with other nations.
(b) It takes a year to learn the basics of the job.
(c) almost no one in congress grasps economics
(d) Term Limits or any other device merely hands power from politicians to their staffs and the bureaucracy turning politicians into talking heads easily manipulated by the staff and bureaucracy.
(e) It takes 12 years to bring strategic policy into being, and so two year terms are harmful to strategic policy – the house should be four and the senate six or more.

(f) Tim Pool is correct in that we do not have sufficient limits on constraining Clientelism: “The historical American problem you are referring to is indeed commonly known as “clientelism.” Clientelism is a political system in which individuals or groups receive benefits in exchange for political support. In the context of American history, this often took the form of patronage jobs, where politicians would use their influence to provide jobs or other benefits to their supporters. This practice has been a recurring issue throughout American history, with various reforms and laws enacted to address it.”

(g) We would be better off if the congress could only authorize law that was then voted on by random sampling of tax paying citizens (direct or economic democracy).

(h) And we would be much better off if laws passed by congress then had to pass judicial scrutiny – rather than throwing policy over the wall and victimizing the population with it until the supreme court had to settle matters – usually taking years and fortunes.

(i) Tim (most of you) are not aware of our organization or our work on constitutional, legal, and economic reform. But if you were you’d grasp that this kind of reformation is necessary in every durable political order. And so far the english and the american, because we DO (or at least did) rely on rule of law, and in particular, ulike europe, rule of law by the natural law of tort (individual sovereignty and reciprocity) has created the most durable governments currently living and the most stable governments in history in proportion to the rates of dynamic change.

(j) You will not like this answer, but the cause of our issues is largely the introduction of female intuition and instinct into economy and polity without equally regulating against female intuitions and instincts as we have the masculine. After all, current leftism, and as such current division, especially the leninist variety advocated in the west, is a continuation of the marxist sequence (marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, woke) system of undermining by false promise of social construction by pseudoscience that will overcome laws of nature, just as the abrahamic religions of judaism, rabbinical judaism, christianity, and that heresy of christianity we call Islam by false promise of social construction by supernaturalism will overcome laws of nature – the result being the dark ages of man, when the technology for the industrial revolution was available just as these religions asserted their seditions. However, what we failed to realize, is that sexes differ in their means of warfare. And that these seditions, whether by feminine instinct for antisocial behavior (promiscuity, undermining, and sewing division), or the abrahamic application of those techniques, or the marxist application, all make use of the same very simple techniques. And that, very rarely have those of feminine instincts had liberty to assert power at economic and political scale – with every instance from the Spartan to the Roman to the Present producing the same consequential defeat of the civilization. This does not mean we cannot include the feminine cognition (whether by males or females) in the economy and polity – it only means we must prohibit the use of the female means of baiting into hazard, undermining, sedition and treason as their means of competition, and instead force them as we have men into sovereignty and reciprocity by empiricism and reason.

(k) I recognize that the vox populi, even in a demographic that follows someone like Tim, is not possessed of the knowledge to grasp these issues at this scale. But I beg your patience to understand that:
… i) we are in fight for our civilization and perhaps mankind given the uniqueness of western civilization and
… ii) that the problems we are facing by the capture of institutions by the feminine means of expression of natural seduction, baiting into hazard, undermining, and sedition that they ‘oddly’ intuit as ‘doing the right thing’ by their instincts, is nothing but evasion of responsibility for self regulation and adaptation as well as the capacity to bear responsibility for civilizational capital that results from those demands – a set of demands that is unique to the west and nearly alone is the reason why despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age, and lacking fertile flood river valleys, we evolved faster than all civilizations combined – despite the dark ages of abrahamic religions.

(l) I do not err in diagnosis or solution but that does not mean that I am, or my organization is, possessed of the capacity to bring about change without the knowledge of the change required to restore our civilization despite the introduction of our own women on one end of the spectrum, and immigration of those from other civilizations even less willing and able to engage in self regulation and the burden of responsibility for self, the private, and common that is the group evolutionary strategy of europeans that began with the necessity of governance among cattle raiders on the steppe: Sovereignty requiring reciprocity and democracy under rule of law by the natural law of tort.

Affections
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

https://t.co/DgufGvcQ4E

WE NEED A CONVENTION OF THE STATES, AN UPRISING, OR A CIVIL WAR TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME REFORMS. BUT WHAT REFORMS?
Tim Pool, (All),
(a) We need statesmen with institutional, national, and international experience to compete with other nations.
(b) It takes a year to learn the basics of the job.
(c) almost no one in congress grasps economics
(d) Term Limits or any other device merely hands power from politicians to the
(e) It takes 12 years to bring strategic policy into being, and so two year terms are harmful to strategic policy – the house should be four and the senate six or more.

(f) Tim Pool is correct in that we do not have sufficient limits on constraining Clientelism: “The historical American problem you are referring to is indeed commonly known as “clientelism.” Clientelism is a political system in which individuals or groups receive benefits in exchange for political support. In the context of American history, this often took the form of patronage jobs, where politicians would use their influence to provide jobs or other benefits to their supporters. This practice has been a recurring issue throughout American history, with various reforms and laws enacted to address it.”

(g) We would be better off if the congress could only authorize law that was then voted on by random sampling of tax paying citizens (direct or economic democracy).

(h) And we would be much better off if laws passed by congress then had to pass judicial scrutiny – rather than throwing policy over the wall and victimizing the population with it until the supreme court had to settle matters – usually taking years and fortunes.

(i) Tim (most of you) are not aware of our organization or our work on constitutional, legal, and economic reform. But if you were you’d grasp that this kind of reformation is necessary in every durable political order. And so far the english and the american, because we DO (or at least did) rely on rule of law, and in particular, ulike europe, rule of law by the natural law of tort (individual sovereignty and reciprocity) has created the most durable governments currently living and the most stable governments in history in proportion to the rates of dynamic change.

(j) You will not like this answer, but the cause of our issues is largely the introduction of female intuition and instinct into economy and polity without equally regulating against female intuitions and instincts as we have the masculine. After all, current leftism, and as such current division, especially the leninist variety advocated in the west, is a continuation of the marxist sequence (marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, woke) system of undermining by false promise of social construction by pseudoscience that will overcome laws of nature, just as the abrahamic religions of judaism, rabbinical judaism, christianity, and that heresy of christianity we call Islam by false promise of social construction by supernaturalism will overcome laws of nature – the result being the dark ages of man, when the technology for the industrial revolution was available just as these religions asserted their seditions. However, what we failed to realize, is that sexes differ in their means of warfare. And that these seditions, whether by feminine instinct for antisocial behavior (promiscuity, undermining, and sewing division), or the abrahamic application of those techniques, or the marxist application, all make use of the same very simple techniques. And that, very rarely have those of feminine instincts had liberty to assert power at economic and political scale – with every instance from the Spartan to the Roman to the Present producing the same consequential defeat of the civilization. This does not mean we cannot include the feminine cognition (whether by males or females) in the economy and polity – it only means we must prohibit the use of the female means of baiting into hazard, undermining, sedition and treason as their means of competition, and instead force them as we have men into sovereignty and reciprocity by empiricism and reason.

(k) I recognize that the vox populi, even in a demographic that follows someone like Tim, is not possessed of the knowledge to grasp these issues at this scale. But I beg your patience to understand that:
… i) we are in fight for our civilization and perhaps mankind given the uniqueness of western civilization and
… ii) that the problems we are facing by the capture of institutions by the feminine means of expression of natural seduction, baiting into hazard, undermining, and sedition that they ‘oddly’ intuit as ‘doing the right thing’ by their instincts, is nothing but evasion of responsibility for self regulation and adaptation as well as the capacity to bear responsibility for civilizational capital that results from those demands – a set of demands that is unique to the west and nearly alone is the reason why despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age, and lacking fertile flood river valleys, we evolved faster than all civilizations combined – despite the dark ages of abrahamic religions.

(l) I do not err in diagnosis or solution but that does not mean that I am, or my organization is, possessed of the capacity to bring about change without the knowledge of the change required to restore our civilization despite the introduction of our own women on one end of the spectrum, and immigration of those from other civilizations even less willing and able to engage in self regulation and the burden of responsibility for self, the private, and common that is the group evolutionary strategy of europeans that began with the necessity of governance among cattle raiders on the steppe: Sovereignty requiring reciprocity and democracy under rule of law by the natural law of tort.

Affections
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

https://t.co/DgufGvcQ4E