(FB 1552147611 Timestamp) By: Pat Ryan America expended its goodwill as the great equality experiment via democratic tradition during the two World Wars, ensuring the mythology was monopolized by grass-is-greener communism. …. America traded mythological hope for material justice. Guess when discontent institutionalized?
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1552147225 Timestamp) Look at this guy. My New Personal Hero: @[100023730521370:2048:Sarunas Navickis]
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1552147225 Timestamp) Look at this guy. My New Personal Hero: @[100023730521370:2048:Sarunas Navickis]
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552145789 Timestamp) —“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”— Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience. There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity. The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed. The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule. So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people). I DO understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law). I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552145789 Timestamp) —“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”— Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience. There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity. The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed. The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule. So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people). I DO understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law). I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.
-
(FB 1552069378 Timestamp) COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations Almost there with t
(FB 1552069378 Timestamp) COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations Almost there with these videos 1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m 2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m 3. Serialization (how to) ~15m 4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30m
-
(FB 1552069378 Timestamp) COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations Almost there with t
(FB 1552069378 Timestamp) COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations Almost there with these videos 1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m 2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m 3. Serialization (how to) ~15m 4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30m
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552062098 Timestamp) DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I â RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law. 1 â Rule of Law: a âSubstantiveâ (Skeptical) or âthickâ definition that must preserve certain rights; 2 â Rule by Law: a âFormalistâ: (Optimistic) or âthinâ definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and; 3 â Rule of Man: a âFunctionalâ (Fictional) or âultra-thinâ definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway. The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands â a means of violating rights. Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights. Rule of Law (By Rights) 1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation) 2 â Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the âjustnessâ of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges). Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of ârule of lawâ. The âformalâ interpretation is more widespread than the âsubstantiveâ interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion) 3 â The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term ârule of lawâ, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the ârule of lawâ with the ârule of man.â According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of ârule of lawâ, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of ârule of lawâ. Closing (Summary) In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).