Curt Doolittle

Form: Thread

  • “Q: What is the greatest challenge facing the United States?”– No way to choose

    –“Q: What is the greatest challenge facing the United States?”–

    No way to choose one. So here is a top ten list:

    1) Immigration, particularly from the developing world has dropped our IQ from 100 to 97 and shortly 95, creating a second-world country with a second-world economy.

    2) Immigrant cities and individual irresponsibility vs established suburbs and territories with individual responsibility creating massive political division largely because of the voting habits of single, childless women who always and everywhere destroy the distribution of votes.

    3) Woke (race Marxism) as a white-hatred ideology, as the excuse to undermining our civilization just as the left planned by the “march of destruction thru the institutions of cultural production.” And yes it was done on purpose. And yes we know who funded it.

    4) The effect of it and women on the decline in education. And our failure to fire them all as we did air traffic controllers, close the Department of education and restore the obligation of educators to produce graduates capable of entering the workforce as literate arithmetic and sufficiently technologically competent to provide self-sustaining employment.

    5) The family court system, feminists and the destruction of the family, and the sex trade and the destruction of dating, mating, and marriage.

    6) the suppression of IQ testing mandating expensive degrees that have no material influence on capability, yet create debt and delay marriage and reproduction.

    7) The continued sacrifice of our laboring and working classes to immigration that suppresses their wages, and overseas trade that offshores their jobs.

    8) The slow repatriation of industry offshored since the seventies.

    9) Our folly at not ‘finishing the job’ with Russia, China and Iran, and as such not fully ending the age of empires, combined with letting Europe free ride on our payment for the world system of finance, transport and trade, so that they can have social programs and spending that has led to population collapse, and inabilty to defend themselves, produce energy themselves, and defend necessary resources and trade themselves. Meanwhile virtue signaling to the states that we don’t have the programs they can’t afford without our strategic subsidies.

    10) The failure to preserve our common law prohibition on reputation destruction cancelling, deplatforming, and interference in employment or business, without liability.

    That’s just the top ten off the top of my head.

    Reply addressees: @spectatorindex

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 03:38:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706875945263509504

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706715262119297291

  • That is false. 0 The West has always practiced trifunctionalism: a balance of po

    That is false.
    0 The West has always practiced trifunctionalism: a balance of power between masculine state and feminine faith mediated by our traditional law of reciprocal isnurance of self determination by self determined means by tests of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, and responsibility(duty) to defend all of the above. There is NO monoply here. No demand for equality. It is a means for cooperation between the classes and their elites whether preisthood, commerce and law, or state and war.

    1. Marxist (lower class marxism): Lower class monopoly/equality: seeks to avoid all individual responsibility.

    2. Libertarian (middle class marxism): Middle class Monoply/Equality: seeks to avoid all individual responsibility for the commons.

    3. NeoConservativism (upper class marxism): Upper Class (Globalist) Monopoly: depriving others peoples of self determination by self determined means.

    The transformation of Trotskyism to neoconservatism is a complex and nuanced topic that has been the subject of much scholarly debate. While not all neoconservatives have roots in Trotskyism, there is a notable intellectual lineage that connects some early neoconservative thinkers to Trotskyist ideas. Here’s a detailed exploration:

    Historical Context
    Trotskyism: Originating from the ideas of Leon Trotsky, a Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Trotskyism was a form of communism that differed from Stalinism. Trotsky advocated for “permanent revolution,” emphasizing the need for an ongoing, worldwide revolution of the proletariat.

    Post-WWII America: After World War II, the United States entered a period of ideological struggle against communism, particularly the form of communism represented by the Soviet Union. During this time, many intellectuals who were originally sympathetic to socialist or Trotskyist ideas began to reconsider their positions.

    Intellectual Shift
    Disillusionment with Communism: The exposure of Stalin’s atrocities, the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, and other events led many leftist intellectuals to become disillusioned with communism.

    The New York Intellectuals: A group of scholars and writers based mainly in New York, many of whom were originally Trotskyists or socialists, began to shift rightward. Figures like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were instrumental in this intellectual migration.

    Realpolitik and Pragmatism: As these intellectuals moved away from Marxism, they began to adopt a more pragmatic approach to politics, influenced by the realpolitik of the Cold War era. They started to see American power as a necessary counterbalance to Soviet influence.

    Core Tenets and Transformation
    Democratic Capitalism: Many of these former Trotskyists came to see democratic capitalism as the most viable system for the promotion of human freedom and prosperity.

    Moral Clarity: Borrowing from their Trotskyist roots, the neoconservatives maintained a kind of moral absolutism. They believed in the existence of good and evil in international relations and felt that the United States had a moral duty to combat tyranny.

    Interventionism: The idea of spreading democracy and combating totalitarian regimes remained, albeit now aligned with American rather than communist revolutionary fervor.

    Criticisms and Controversies
    Overemphasis on American Power: Critics argue that the neoconservative belief in American exceptionalism and moral duty can lead to reckless foreign policy decisions, as seen in the Iraq War.

    Ideological Rigidity: The moral absolutism that neoconservatives inherited from their Trotskyist roots is often criticized for lacking nuance, leading to a binary worldview.

    Social Conservatism: As they moved rightward, many neoconservatives also adopted socially conservative positions, which have been criticized for being exclusionary or regressive.

    In summary, while not all neoconservatives have Trotskyist roots, the intellectual journey from Trotskyism to neoconservatism for some key figures involves a complex interplay of historical events, ideological shifts, and pragmatic considerations. Would you like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of this transformation?

    Reply addressees: @antipartison @desilva_frank @JoshEakle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 01:11:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706838970028511232

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706835018587513026

  • EXPLAINING THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY IN THE USA – AND REASON FOR OUR PRE

    EXPLAINING THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY IN THE USA – AND REASON FOR OUR PRESENT CONFLICT

    QUESTION
    —“does it follow from this that court rulings take precedence over federal law and judges can ‘legislate from the bench’ as we’ve been seeing?”–

    (@feafij Are you sure you don’t have a deep understanding of these issues and are just getting me to explain them for the audience? lol Otherwise you’re quite insightful and we need to maybe invest in training you. 😉 )

    ANSWER
    Problem 1: while the constitution is a document that assumes the common law and the natural law as stated by blackstone, which was the legal frame of reference of the age, this is not explictyly stated other than vaguely in the declaration and preamble.
    So, the people are sovereign, meaning they insure one an other’s self determination by self determined means -and sovereign within the limits of the natural law of sovereignty, reciprocity, and duty to sovereignty and reciprocity. All our laws evolve from this simple rule. And that rule is 5000 years old and the core of western civilization and the reason for our difference from the rest.

    Problem 2: the civil war, the great depression, and the communist revolution we call the civil right era, allowed the federal government to deprive states of their rights, and expand it’s powers beyond those which were granted by the constitution or the people by amendment.
    This has led to the conflict that denies that the USA is at least eleven different sub-civilizations, just as is europe, and that the federal government was designed to provide taxes for defense and dispute resolution between these civilizations and the states they are organized into, while leaving the culture and preferences to the states.
    The government is required to guarranteed the bill of rights and a republican government and rule of law, but that is all. WHat has happend is that the governmetn has been captured by activists who wish to produce a monopoly culture across these regions that leads to the natural conflict between large immigrant cities where individuals are powerless because responsibilty is impossible, and suburbs and territories where individuals are not powerless because responsibility is possible.

    SOLUTION
    The solution the present problem is the devolution of the federal government to its original design as a federation that resolved conflicts and provded defnse, but did not try to create homogeneouety of culture, especially because of this culture war against our soverignty, responsibility, institutions, law, traditions and civilization.
    This is what our organizatin is working toward. (Slowly).

    HIERARCHY
    1) The natural law, the sovereign people under that law, the constitution of those people under that law, and the common law process of discovery of agreement on wrongs, take precedent over legislation and regulation – as we have seen – except where explicitly justified by legislation.

    2) Legislation and regulation can modify even the common law, as long as it does not conflict with the constitution.

    3) Due to judicial review, the supreme court is bound by the constitution, the common law (history of law, meaning prescedent), and can invalidate legislation and regulation. Most other thinkers will not state it this way but as you can see with the court’s return to law as a science, the court is requiring that there be some common law precedent if one is to impose anything that would impose upon the constitution or the natural law.

    4) Legal activism, or ‘lawfare’ consisting of efforts to circumvent the people, and the legislature is a violation of our constitution and law, but is a hole that was abused during the 20th by boy lawfare and ‘positive law’, and betwen the federalist society and justice scalia in particular, and the trump appointments to the court that were recommended by the federalist society, the court is trying to gradually ‘undo’ the efforts at ‘legislation from the bench’, and thus return matters to the states. Most activism of the 1960s onward has been catastrophically harmful but the court needs a case before it to rule those behaviors by the court (see Abortion) or the legislature (bussing etc) and hopefully no fault divorce and ending of liability for interference in a marriage, so that these disasters will be reversed over the next decade.

    Note: our organization is trying to plug about eight holes in the cosnstitutiont hat have allowed the undermining of our constitution and law, which are for all intents and puroses and empirical and scientific method of government – and the most empirical and scientific possible for man.

    GENERAL INTERPRETATION
    While my arguments above are more accurate than the simple hierarchy that we follow in most cases – cases that are not fundamental violations of the natural common concurrent law of the US cosntitution: in the United States, that simple hierarchy of laws is generally structured as follows, from highest to lowest authority:

    Hierarchy of Laws
    U.S. Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All other laws, whether federal, state, or local, must comply with the Constitution. Any law found to be in violation of any part of the Constitution is deemed unconstitutional and is therefore invalid.

    Federal Legislation: Federal statutes, also known as acts of Congress, come next in the hierarchy. These laws must be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. If a federal statute conflicts with the Constitution, the statute is invalidated.

    Federal Regulations: Regulations created by federal agencies are subordinate to federal legislation. These regulations must be authorized by enabling legislation and cannot conflict with either the Constitution or federal statutes.

    State Constitutions: Each state has its own constitution, which is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions provide the framework for state laws and must comply with both federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

    State Legislation: State statutes come next and must comply with both the state and U.S. Constitutions. If a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law generally takes precedence due to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    State Regulations: Similar to federal regulations, state regulations are created by state agencies and must comply with state statutes, state constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution.

    Common Law: Common law, or case law, is created by judicial decisions. These decisions interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal and state statutes, and regulations. Common law is considered the “lowest” form of law in this hierarchy but plays a crucial role in interpreting and filling gaps in statutes and regulations.

    Findings of the Court: Court decisions contribute to the body of common law. Lower court decisions are binding only within their jurisdiction and can be overruled by higher courts. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions are final and set precedents that all other courts must follow.

    Key Points
    Judicial Review: Courts have the power to review and possibly invalidate government actions that violate the Constitution, federal or state statutes, or corresponding regulations.

    Stare Decisis: This is the principle that courts should generally abide by precedent. However, higher courts have the authority to overturn precedents, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions.

    Conflict of Laws: When there’s a conflict between different levels of law, the higher level generally takes precedence. For example, federal laws trump state laws due to the Supremacy Clause.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 00:45:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706832524243070976

  • RESTORING CIVILIZATION: LAWFARE AGAINST THE MARXIST-TO-WOKE CULT —“Woke is a r

    RESTORING CIVILIZATION: LAWFARE AGAINST THE MARXIST-TO-WOKE CULT

    —“Woke is a religion. It requires blind faith that ignores data, smears apostates, and is fueled by a climate of fear as it uses public shaming, cancel culture, doxing, shadow banning, ostracism, and career destruction to bulldoze ahead.”– Victor Davis Hanson, Historian, Classisist, Public Intellectual

    Restoring the Common Law Prohibiting Violation of the Rights of Others, and the King’s Peace (common good) by Circimvention of Cooperation, legislation and law
    1) Every strategy stated above violates our common law, limiting us to truthful reciprocal exchange, the court, or (yes) the duel. (Preserving the king’s peace). The left has taken advantage of our tolerance to circumvent the court, the legislature and conducted private war aginast individuals and groups under color of law. But the supreme court has yet had the opportunity to rule on these crimes – so our organization will bring this matter before the court if someone doesn’t beat us to it.

    Marxism-to-Woke as Religion
    2) The Court has previously ruled incorrectly on what constitutes a religion when addressing Marxism. This is a ruling easily reversed. As such, upon our victory, the woke religion may not be taught in our education system, be paid for by use student loans financed by the government, recieve any kind of funds, or be referenced or applied in our government. Our organization will bring this matter before the court unless someone beats us to it.

    Tolerance for Hostile Religions As Weapons of War
    3) The Court has incorrectly overly interpreted the prohibition on state sponsorship of religion, as preventing the state from prohibition of religions hostile to and claiming superiority or primacy over, hostile to our christian ethics when these ethics are stated in secular legal prose, whether philosophical or theological in origin, or claiming superiority to our common law of sovereignty reciprocity and tort, the natural law of cooperation, or our constitution that enumerates the methods of deciding by commonality and concurrency, the content of our laws and legislations.
    This goal is very difficult to achieve, but we are confident that we have a pathway to victory even if it takes time. Why? Religions are group strategies and all but christianity and the remnants of our ancient natural religion within and without it, are hostile to our civilization, and if allowed to spread, in secular theological or philosophical, or even ideological form, will continue to undermine our civilization from within – because we are the most tolerant and trusting civlization on earth. This virtue cannot be made into a vulnerability that’s used to continue to destroy us from within. It destroyed our ancestors, and it may not destroy us.

    Our Mission: Reversal of Lawfare
    We have spent more than a decade of research and development preparing to reverse the waging of war against our civilization by our legal system using systematic ‘lawfare’ and if we are successful will end the entire marxist-to-woke warfare against not only our civilization but mankind, and prevent any attempted repetition of it from reoccuring forever.

    Now Instead Of Later
    We would prefer to wait another year until our publications are released. But we’re forced by the rate of decline in our institutions to begin converting to activism now, given the likelyhood of unrest, civil war, or worse, that may follow if no solution is brought that satisfies both the feminine left’s ambitions, the center’s ambitions, and the masculine right’s ambitions. Why? Becuse the difference is in feminine dependency and irresponsibility and masculine independece and responsibility. And western civilization’s entire success is predicated on our long history of the maximization of individual responsibilty to all willing and able to bear it – and constraining those who are not, from interfence in those who are.

    Upcomming NLI Conference
    FWIW: While we have held symposiums and demonstrations in the past, we are holding our first conference north of Boston in November, and the speakers will address our mission going forward, and deliver thoughts on the spectrum of reforms we seek, some technical some populist, as well as comments on recent events.

    It Appears We Are Alone In Producing Actionable Solutions
    You probably don’t know this but we are the only people with the only organization that has practical, implementable solutions that will resolve conflicts and let us prosper except for those on either extreme who will never be happy no matter what is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 21:50:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706788262516260864

  • RT @Will_of_Europa: @Nantanreikan Freedom of assembly is apparently a crime for

    RT @Will_of_Europa: @Nantanreikan Freedom of assembly is apparently a crime for white people only. Our polity is so high trust, so producti…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 18:46:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706741960554275237

  • RT @ThruTheHayes

    RT @ThruTheHayes: https://twitter.com/ThruTheHayes/status/1706315507496812703

  • RT @RealJamesWoods: Thank you. The first lesson I learned at MIT was a concept s

    RT @RealJamesWoods: Thank you. The first lesson I learned at MIT was a concept so simple, it’s dangerously easy to ignore. I learned how to…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 17:39:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706725277274193985

  • IS CHRISTIANITY THE FOUNDATION OF WOKE? (More correctly, it is the feminine > Je

    IS CHRISTIANITY THE FOUNDATION OF WOKE?
    (More correctly, it is the feminine > Jewish Abrahamic> Marxist-to-woke evolution of warfare by social construction from within – war by feminine sedition.)

    Correct interpretation:
    The woke movement (race Marxism) is the product of the…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 22:35:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706437304460390527

    Reply addressees: @D__2__3 @uberboyo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706379276067500398

  • IS CHRISTIANITY THE FOUNDATION OF WOKE? (More correctly, it is the feminine > Je

    IS CHRISTIANITY THE FOUNDATION OF WOKE?
    (More correctly, it is the feminine > Jewish Abrahamic> Marxist-to-woke evolution of warfare by social construction from within – war by feminine sedition.)

    Correct interpretation:
    The woke movement (race Marxism) is the product of the following sequence of seditious movements:

    1. Female Instinct: The female means of warfare by undermining using social construction of false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe under claims of plausible deniability of innocence, by blaming people, particularly men, and mainly European aristocracy, for the consequences of genetic differences between the sexes, classes, and populations – as oppression. Sexes differ not only in our means of warfare (men direct, physical, and political vs women indirect, verbal, and social).

    2. Abrahamic Sequence: The Jewish separatist revolt against the aristocratic peoples (the indo-european spectrum on the one hand and their ‘trainers’ the Egyptians on the other) adopted the feminine strategy, and over time, especially in response to their defeat, dislocation, and conquest, this evolved into the sequence of abrahamic religions: a slave revolt – which is why they used the symbol of the cross. The sequence is an application of the social construction of the female false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe – resulting in the dark ages in Europe and the destruction and reduction to ashes by the Muslims of every great civilization of the ancient world other than China, and nearly India.

    3. Marxist Sequence: The Jewish separatist revolt by the reformation of supernatural, theological religion into pseudoscientific and ideological marxist to woke sequence of cults – again, the social construction of a fraud, promising freedom from the laws of the universe: scarcity, self-interest, and natural selection – as well as the means of describing those laws: testimonial truth and logical consistency.

    Abrahamic Synthesis of Sex Differences in Deception
    The abrahamic invention that took place after the Roman conquest, resulting in Christianity and rabbinical Judaism, and only later that heresy of Christianity we call Islam – was the product of an innovation in lying that is horrific in consequence, even if fascinating in technical analysis.

    The Jewish people are not innovators in other than what we call ‘mythicism’ but should be translated as storytelling or historical revisionism, which attempts to seduce by suspension of disbelief into an empathic agreement on “feels”, instead of a systematic agreement on “reals” (truth). A deception that is the polar opposite of the European male method of testimony and systematizing or what originated as ‘military reporting, court testimony, and eventually confession’, creating the unique Western tradition of truth before face regardless of cost – as well as our ability to invent reason, logic, empiricism, science.

    So the unification of the feminine means of seduction, deception, storytelling mythicism, loading, framing, suggestion, and obscurantism, with the masculine European system of systematizing was as great an innovation in lying as the European sequence of reason-to-science was an innnovation in testimonial truth.

    The Seditious Sequence of Feminine-Abrahamic War:
    Marxist(LowerClassMarxism) >
    … NeoMarxist(CulturalMarxism) >
    … … Postmodern(TruthMarxism) >
    … … … Trotsky-NeoConservatism >
    … … … … Feminism(SexMarxism) >
    .. … … … … Libertarian(MiddleClassMarxism) >
    … … … … … … Friere’s-Woke (EducationalMarxism) >
    … … … … … … … PC-Woke(Race Marxism)

    Sedition and Treason:
    Using Feminine > Abrahamic > Marxist Warfare by Fraud. Or what we technically refer to as seduction into the false promise of freedom from the four sets of laws of the universe, by the accusation of men as oppressors instead of their DOMESTICATORS and CIVILIZERS, hiding under the moral pretense of plausible deniability that their actions are moral rather than seditious warfare that spreads the feminine instinct of irresponsibility for the commons, such that it overwhelms the incentive for men to take responsibility for the commons – and therefore build civilization.

    Sex Differences:
    The male form of warfare is bad and recoverable. The feminine method of warfare is evil and unrecoverable. Hence the historical reputation of, and treatment of women.

    The Undoing of our Compromise Between the Sexes
    And the left and the feminists have just undone two thousand years of our efforts to domesticate women into civilization such that we could reverse the historical understanding and universal perception of women as childish, impulsive, shallow, greedy, hyper-consumptive, attention-seeking, disloyal, seditious, treasonous, harpies and wh–res for whom Pandora was but a gentle reflection – that men must protect society against by constraining women from public exercise of their natural, almost universally uncontrollable, criminality if not constrained by social pressures to domesticate and limit them.

    Audience
    I cannot control for the IQ and knowledge of my readers, so I can only hope to educate those who have the ability and knowledge to recognize the patterns of causality across the sciences and history I explain to them. That said, I can claim with certainty that this string of causality is the most parsimonious, accurate, explanatory power available now or ever. In other words, this is the science of the evolution of the institutionalization of deception using the feminine means of sedition. I can likewise explain the same arc of male deception. Which is boring by comparison. 😉

    I usually end with ‘cheers’, but there is nothing to cheer here.

    Sincerely

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 22:35:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706437303957123072

  • WHY DO WE HAVE MARRIAGE LICENSES? AND WHAT IS A MARRIAGE FOR THAT MATTER? (Histo

    WHY DO WE HAVE MARRIAGE LICENSES? AND WHAT IS A MARRIAGE FOR THAT MATTER?
    (Historically, for the same reason we have title companies for our homes and automobiles, and insurers to protect those assets. Today to destroy our civilization from within?)

    TERMINOLOGY
    (a) License is just a term that the state can use, but that’s not its purpose. Most of the time, states use the term “Marriage Certificate” which allows third parties to verify the marriage exists and committments by both parties are enforcible.

    HISTORICALLY
    (a) Marriage was a contract between the sexes on one hand, and public marriage a committment by the people and the polity to insure the marriage by **non interference in the marriage**. Essentially a property right of both parties.

    (b) To protect the common good, the church then the government or both enforced the contract between the parties, and between that party and the public. The broadest funciton of the state is ‘insurer of last resort’. Much of what governments do act as an insurer. Regulation is by and large an act of insurance of the people gainst harm.

    (c) The state In it’s role as an insurer against harms by others, and with marriage crimes being common in history, including bigamy, undermining a marriage, and divorce, states had an interest in suppressing marriage crimes. So laws regulating divorce and the distribution of assets (usually children and what you brought into the marriage for the woman, and what he accumulated during marriage for the man (if anything).)

    (d) Given that families were one’s primary economic and survival insurer, and especially the insurer of the offspring, such that single mothers and abandoned children didn not brecome a hazard to local society, historically speaking **marriage was a union between families not just individuals**.

    (e) As such, as populations and mobility increased, notices were published usually in the churches (the “Bans”) to prevent bigamy and to ask the community if there were objections. (We still ask for objections in our traditional wedding vows today.)

    (f) In the USA where religion was inconsistent, and cross-religious marriage common, marriage licenses evolved because the state officials could conduct marriage instead of just the church. So in practice – a marriage license is a **record of a contract** that the state can enforce, and prevention of false claims that attempted to make the state enforce.

    (g) In the USA, the marriage license was expanded from preventing bigamy and limiting divorce crimes, and next used to prohibit interracial marriages, and later, once awareness of blood type incompatibility and its affect on children, and later to assist in shared credit and state benefits.

    THEREFORE
    1. Does the state have a role in enforcement of a contract and in defense of the asset of the marriage?
    … (Yes, certainly).
    2. Does the state have a role in determining how marriage may be used for circumventing law, abridging cultural norms and traditions, or other impositions of costs upon the community given that the family is the first of the formal institutions of any polity?
    … (Probably)
    3. Does the state have a role in determining if other than a man and a woman can engage in marriage? No historical evidence. No necessity. Same can be accomplished by private contract, including exchange of powers of attorney.
    … (Questionably.)
    4. Does the state have a role in ending the prohibition on the interference in a marriage; or enacting no fault divorce, forcing common property, or alimony, or child support?
    … (Absolutely not)

    The Progressive Administrative, Managerial State, in league with the left, and the feminists, have destroyed the institution of marriage, the family as insurer, and the public’s defense of that institution and contract – and with it the first and most necessar instituion of behavioral, social, cultural, economic, and political constructoin.

    Just as the left said it would – and did.
    So, what is the difference between war against life and physical capital without, versus war against behavioral and institutional capital within?

    There isn’t any other than the rate of destruction.
    It’s still war.

    Cheers
    Curt

    Reply addressees: @Xeranx @Eliendssss @return_of_rome @schizarella

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-25 21:45:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706424678523293696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706304616265117798