Theme: Constitutional Order

  • “Q: CURT: HOW DO YOU SQUARE DIVORCE IN THE RELIGIOUS WITH CULTURE IS DOWNSTREAM

    “Q: CURT: HOW DO YOU SQUARE DIVORCE IN THE RELIGIOUS WITH CULTURE IS DOWNSTREAM OF LAW.”
    (TL,DR;Pretty easily – the law created the problem when our religon failed to modernize and the marxist-sequence of pseudoscientific lies took root instead)

    Divorce is the result of changes in legal policy favoring divorce, by elimination of liability for interference in a marriage, elimination of liability for breaking a marriage with no fault divorce, the institutionalization of marriage theft by the pretense of common property, and the involuntary liability of men for alimony, and especially child support, and priority of women in children in ‘environmental stability’ at the expense of quality of life, re-mating potential, and lifespan men, when given female hypergamy, devotion without loyalty, abortion, the pill, the expansion of the white collar clerical work suitable for women, and the expansion of debt and spending due to women’s clerical work, superiority at redundant or repetitive clerical work, and women’s dominance in household spending, debt accumulation, consumption of government resources (produced by men), and far higher participation in voting – all produce the incentive to NOT engage in the principle purposes of monogamy: (a) reciprocally putting the other person first (b) the economics of the division of labor by sexual specialization (c) and the institution of marriage as an economic necessity that defends the polity from the (horrific and endless) consequences of single motherhood.
    (Yes, that is a very long sentence. 😉 )

    The Marxist-Leninist-NeoMarxist-Postmodern-Feminist-Libertarian-Neoconservative-Woke Sequence (MLNPFLNW) or just “Marxist sequence” is an attempt (a succesful one) to destroy every institution of western civilization (‘march through the institutions of western cultural production’) and reduce us to middle eastern low trust and tribalism so that we generate demand for authority which the despotic (feminine authoritarian) seek to impose in the vanity that they know better as a class than the people PRODUCE by together by cooperation by the suppression of authority – and like Christianity before it, is spread largely through young and single women as well as outcast undesirable young men.

    After all, the Marxist Sequence is just the same feminine strategy applied to jewish separatism and christian slave and muslim tribal revolts converted from supernatural causes to pseudoscientific causes – with the feminine, supernatural, and the pseudoscientific claims nothing more than seduction (baiting into hazard) with the (false) promise of freedom from the four causes of the four laws of the universe (scarcity, self interest, natural selection, and evidentiary truth) – Adam may be the source of bad, but Eve like Pandora is the source of evil. Women must feel victimized to pursue their antisocial instincts. Judaism and Christianity and the Marxist Sequence, especially feminism and woke, claim oppression from what is domestication into responsibility for the self, teh private, and the common – a responsibilty that the feminine disposition evades at all costs.

    As for religion the research is clear even if the researchers are fearful of stating the conclusions openly – and instead leaving them only for other professionals to understand: (a) religiosity is a feminine disposition, that requires external reinforcement to suppress natural neuroticism(worry, insecurity), (b) or one that incdreases with one’s reproductive and social undesirability. (c) religious participation as good for children and family is a rational choice. (d) the hierarchy of denominations from fundamentalist to church of england (episcopalians in america) are rough approximations of the IQ distribution. (e) this is why the data is often confusing: participation increases with some basic education and decreases with denomination. It means that simple people benefit most from religion for reasons stated in ‘b’ above, but sophisticated people use religion for it’s external properties such as family, society, and reputation.

    About 20-25% of people are psychologically suitable for religion, with that number majority but not exclusively female. Of the males religiosity provides less competent people with greater psychological confidence than their abilities would otherwise grant them (and it works because acting like a christian is the solution to the hard problem of social cooperation).

    We should expect religion to continue to drop to that level and only mediate by the oncoing decline in IQ due to reproductive asymmetry and immigration asymmetry between the classes massively increasing the bottom and driving down the average.

    Our problem then is modernizing christianity (which does work) into a religion of philosophy (natural law) and a science (natural law) completing the work of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Darwin and Spencer, by correctly placing Jesus as did Jefferson in his Jefferson Bible as a philosopher speaking in the primitive langauge of the middle east instead of the European, and assisting the primitive people (including women and slaves) in integration into European aristocratic society and economy by demonstrating that they did not need ability, or wealth, or power, but only virtue – by doing no wrong – to produce the common goods the aristocracy produced by their abilities. In other words, jesus gave slaves, the poor, and women and even children a route to status and as a consequence ‘mindfulness’ (peace of mind) that produces extraordinary cooperation within the aristocratic (meritocratic competitive) civilization that was leaving the middle east in the dust of ignorance, superstition, primitivism, poverty, and war.

    Religiosity failed modernity partly because the Catholic Church – far more corrupt than any modern government – failed to reform, causing the Prostestant Reformation; and the Catholic Church failed again in response to Darwin, by not claiming victory: in that there is no difference between the GOAL of Christianity and the scientific (gods language) explanation of Christianity in the science (testifiable evidence) we find in the natural law of cooperation.

    If that had happend, and the church had reformed, then the marxist-squence cult could not have taken root in the academy, and the marxist-sequence academy, couldn’t have trained generations of women and elites (bureaucrats) to seek Leninist and abrahamic and feminine authority – against the natural law – when, if god does exist, that is the law he gave us. Not in the words of primitive men. But in the langauge of his own hand. Written in the very fabric of the universe at every scale from the very small to the very large.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 13:51:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721163409847169024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721148949170405455

  • RT @TysonBay: @curtdoolittle The purpose of the negativa law is to produce the p

    RT @TysonBay: @curtdoolittle The purpose of the negativa law is to produce the positive building blocks of a stable civilization. This is h…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-02 17:11:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720126393604792812

  • —“Makes me think not so much that liberalism was wrong, but that we were wrong t

    —“Makes me think not so much that liberalism was wrong, but that we were wrong to think what we had was liberalism.

    What we actually had was England.”—

    —-@nickdixoncomic

    This is a profound and true statement.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 14:06:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719717667186135274

  • “We have a leader that can’t be our leader, and I’ll tell you something. It can’

    —“We have a leader that can’t be our leader, and I’ll tell you something. It can’t be much longer. One year is a very long time. They can do tremendous damage to our elections. They can do tremendous damage to our country in one year – and we’re not gonna let it happen.”– @realDonaldTrump

    Well that ‘call to action’ looks like it’s getting closer. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-29 23:52:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1718777825849712640

  • “An interesting figure from Richard Hanania’s recent book “Origins of Woke.” Mor

    “An interesting figure from Richard Hanania’s recent book “Origins of Woke.” Mor

    –“An interesting figure from Richard Hanania’s recent book “Origins of Woke.” More evidence that woke is downstream from law. It seems we could make use of figures using this template as well.”– Via Staff (from elsewhere) https://t.co/E8hPATN5xD


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-26 16:16:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717575975934779558

  • “An interesting figure from Richard Hanania’s recent book “Origins of Woke.” Mor

    –“An interesting figure from Richard Hanania’s recent book “Origins of Woke.” More evidence that woke is downstream from law. It seems we could make use of figures using this template as well.”– Via Staff (from elsewhere)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-26 16:16:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717575975855177733

  • The natural law prevents those elites from legislation that violates that law

    The natural law prevents those elites from legislation that violates that law.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-25 18:55:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717253650211307959

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515 @NatLawInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717236095916872003

  • Sorry Shane, I ‘might have missed the intent of your original question because i

    Sorry Shane, I ‘might have missed the intent of your original question because it was late and I was tired.

    I interpreted the term settlement in the legal sense of a resolution of differences.

    I think you mean settlement in the sense of homesteading.

    A settler is a general term for anyone. A homesteader satisfies legal criteria to invest in improving the capital value of the territory. So a settler is a higher standard of ‘demonstrated improvement in the asset’ than is a settler which just means you’re in the area for one reason or another.

    So the objective critiera is improvement of the territory by putting it to use for the betterment of the self directly and THE COMMONS INDIRECTLY.

    So i’m trying to discover a term that isn’t so fungible and easily misinterpreted, that, like homesteading implies the demand for capital improvement, but is more general rather than an analogy.

    EXPLANATION
    Both “settler” and “homesteader” refer to individuals who move to a new area to establish a residence, but the terms are used in different contexts and carry distinct legal and historical implications.

    Settler:
    General Term: “Settler” is a broader term that applies to anyone who relocates to a new area, often one that is relatively uninhabited or less developed, with the intent of establishing a permanent residence. Settlers can be part of larger colonization efforts, or they may be individuals or families seeking new opportunities.

    Land Ownership: The land that settlers occupy might be purchased, granted by a government, or sometimes seized from native populations. The land could also be part of a larger national or imperial strategy.

    Economic Activity: Settlers are not confined to any specific economic activity; they may engage in farming, trade, or any other livelihood.

    Legal Framework: Land acquisition by settlers is usually governed by the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the land is located. This could range from formal land deeds to customary or traditional rights.

    Historical Context: The term is often used to describe individuals who were part of larger movements of population expansion, such as European settlers in the Americas, Africa, and Australia.

    Homesteader:
    Specific Term: “Homesteader” often refers specifically to individuals or families who acquire land through homesteading laws. In the United States, this is most famously represented by the Homestead Act of 1862.

    Land Ownership: Homesteaders usually acquire land by meeting certain conditions set by the government, such as building a dwelling and cultivating the land for a specified period. After meeting these conditions, they gain legal title to the property.

    Economic Activity: Homesteading often involves subsistence farming, at least initially. The primary purpose is usually agricultural development of the land.

    Legal Framework: Homesteading is typically regulated by specific laws that outline the conditions under which land can be claimed and ownership established.

    Historical Context: The term is often associated with westward expansion in the United States during the 19th and early 20th centuries, but it also applies in other contexts where similar land-grant systems exist.

    Comparison:
    Scope: All homesteaders are settlers, but not all settlers are homesteaders.

    Land Acquisition: Homesteaders usually acquire land through specific legal frameworks that require them to fulfill certain conditions. Settlers may acquire land through a variety of means.

    Intent: Both aim to establish a permanent residence, but homesteaders usually have more specific legal and agricultural obligations to meet.

    Economic Activity: Homesteaders are usually more focused on agricultural development, at least initially, while settlers have a broader range of economic activities.

    By understanding these distinctions, one gains a clearer conceptual grasp of land acquisition and settlement practices, particularly in contexts where legal and historical factors play a significant role.

    Reply addressees: @Claffertyshane


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-25 17:09:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717226923498049536

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717212596841894232

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @samuelcpaiva @OMTyme2Shine @jacksonhinklle You’re confusing

    RT @curtdoolittle: @samuelcpaiva @OMTyme2Shine @jacksonhinklle You’re confusing the priority of democracy with the priorty of rule of law.…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 21:56:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716936615598387550

  • You’re confusing the priority of democracy with the priorty of rule of law. Amer

    You’re confusing the priority of democracy with the priorty of rule of law. American propagandists drank the anti-communist cool aid, and forgot that democracy is the reward for rule of law. It isn’t the means of producing rule of law. Democratically elected parasites and despots…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 21:12:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716925560243229059

    Reply addressees: @samuelcpaiva @OMTyme2Shine @jacksonhinklle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716919473809326151