Theme: Sovereignty

I try to avoid the Fundamentalist, WN, NS movements as much as possible – despite agreeing that I’d prefer to live in a homogenous polity of my own relations, if for no other reason than the reduction of competition for status and because of status for opportunity, and because of opportunity for political power. Like most libertarians and conservatives I view government as a means of limiting us to voluntary market cooperation, and like most conservatives, I view the role of religion, education, and Law as training naturally barbaric, naturally amoral, male and female superpredators to limit themselves to such voluntary market cooperation. This means we can only survive and reproduce by limiting ourselves to voluntary markets cooperation.. And this means that people unfit for the resulting hierarchy that results from voluntary markets for cooperation are selected out of the gene pool by suppression of their reproduction in exchange for their caretaking.  This is a kind way of saying that the natural order always and everywhere either results in indentured and serf classes whose needs are provided for by exiting them from the market for cooperation in exchange for exiting them from reproduction – thereby constantly reducing the burden of unfit people on fit people. So despite the context of avoiding WN, NS, and Fundamentalists, that doesn’t mean I eschew discourse with their thought leaders – any more than eschewing discourse with libertarian and leftist thought leaders.  Why? Because they’re all unsatisfied with the status quo, they’ve all just chosen the extreme means of solving the problem of altering the status quo and therefore limiting themselves to political fringes.  The status quo is just as problematic for leftists, libertarians, and rightists. The only people it’s good for are the predatory elites who pit everyone against one another, the top organizing the bottom against the middle. And the left as always serves as the useful idiot soldiery for the top that organizes them against the middle. Yesterday I had a two-hour conversation with someone from the Northwest Front. This is a well-organized, well-thought-out movement with written canon, strategy, tactics, and constitution. As in all cases, conservatives are superior educators, and leftists are superior agitators. And the conservatives are happy to state their desired end state, while the left evades any statement of their desired end state. So after our conversation, I agreed to look at their constitution. And after reading it, I can’t find fault with it. It’s free of the usual optimism, sophistry, and pretense. A study of world constitutions is a study of fantasy political literature -which is why constitutions other than the American are so subject to irrelevance. And the constitution they sent me to review is a document consisting of clearly stated empirical realism. However, that constitution is one of escape from the enemy, without correcting for the means of total war by the enemy.  The enemy of western civilization uses the female method of undermining from within by sowing discord, demonizing the leadership, demonizing the norms traditions values and institutions of cultural production, and then promising a big lie that if they were in charge ‘things would be better’.  This is the fantasy of every mother and most women.  Because they desire the world be suited for the reduction of their effort of the neuroticism (worrying, anxiety, fear, impulse) of the female mind, as suits their children – or worse, that suits their status pursuit, whether by virtue-signaling non-aggression under the pretense of care, or hypergamy under the pretense of equality, or hyperconsumption under the pretense of both, if they don’t have children. All of these ‘benevolent facades’ are just selfish demands from males to satisfy their impulses over which – without religion or ritual of some kind, or kinship-female group suppression, or the empiricism that results from having four or more children – they cannot control.  Likewise, male motivation for heroism and desire for status, and access to kindness, affection, sex, reproduction, is obtained by satisfying the selfishness of women that they project as benevolence but are just demands for discounts on consumption because of her necessity of raising fragile offspring while maintaining her maximum market value to women and to men – but primarily to women. So my work takes a very different approach. And that is to increase the suppression of female anti-social behavior, that scales to female warfare, that was converted to a group evolutionary strategy by the Jews, Christians and Muslims, to the same degree that we have suppressed the male anti-social behavior that scale to male warfare, that was converted to a group evolutionary strategy by the Indo Europeans from whom Europeans descend. So where the Northwest Front constitution states isolation and political organization, my work on the law creates a market (court) for the suppression of the female means of anti-social behavior, just as thoroughly as it creates a market (court) for the suppression of male anti-social behavior.  The difference is that I don’t leave out the problem of the ‘unfit’ – and solve that problem too. The pre-war soft-eugenicists were right. The war hard-eugenicists were … wrong. Sorry. So where most if not all constitutions evade law in favor of the law-making process, my constitution turns law into a formal logic that is as rock-solid as mathematics and writing like software programming, to ensure that the female method of civilizational destruction cannot only be suppressed internally but that war is justified in suppression of it externally. So when I say that my work on constitutions is inflexible in law, but that the means of construction of policy (legislation, regulation) is a Chinese menu of choices within that law, though I do recommend a recipe for ‘perfect government’ for people capable of it, you can set up any government you want that suppresses both male and female means of internal anti-social behavior, and anti-societal warfare. Ergo my work os compatible with the NW constitution. It would be compatible for all conservative and libertarian people and for certain most centrist people.  But if you want a free-rider upper cast that parasitically lives off , and obtains power by the redistribution underclass, at the expense of the productive middle classes then you’re going to have to find some other constitution and body of law.    

I try to avoid the Fundamentalist, WN, NS movements as much as possible – despite agreeing that I’d prefer to live in a homogenous polity of my own relations, if for no other reason than the reduction of competition for status and because of status for opportunity, and because of opportunity for political power. Like most libertarians and conservatives I view government as a means of limiting us to voluntary market cooperation, and like most conservatives, I view the role of religion, education, and Law as training naturally barbaric, naturally amoral, male and female superpredators to limit themselves to such voluntary market cooperation. This means we can only survive and reproduce by limiting ourselves to voluntary markets cooperation.. And this means that people unfit for the resulting hierarchy that results from voluntary markets for cooperation are selected out of the gene pool by suppression of their reproduction in exchange for their caretaking.  This is a kind way of saying that the natural order always and everywhere either results in indentured and serf classes whose needs are provided for by exiting them from the market for cooperation in exchange for exiting them from reproduction – thereby constantly reducing the burden of unfit people on fit people. So despite the context of avoiding WN, NS, and Fundamentalists, that doesn’t mean I eschew discourse with their thought leaders – any more than eschewing discourse with libertarian and leftist thought leaders.  Why? Because they’re all unsatisfied with the status quo, they’ve all just chosen the extreme means of solving the problem of altering the status quo and therefore limiting themselves to political fringes.  The status quo is just as problematic for leftists, libertarians, and rightists. The only people it’s good for are the predatory elites who pit everyone against one another, the top organizing the bottom against the middle. And the left as always serves as the useful idiot soldiery for the top that organizes them against the middle. Yesterday I had a two-hour conversation with someone from the Northwest Front. This is a well-organized, well-thought-out movement with written canon, strategy, tactics, and constitution. As in all cases, conservatives are superior educators, and leftists are superior agitators. And the conservatives are happy to state their desired end state, while the left evades any statement of their desired end state. So after our conversation, I agreed to look at their constitution. And after reading it, I can’t find fault with it. It’s free of the usual optimism, sophistry, and pretense. A study of world constitutions is a study of fantasy political literature -which is why constitutions other than the American are so subject to irrelevance. And the constitution they sent me to review is a document consisting of clearly stated empirical realism. However, that constitution is one of escape from the enemy, without correcting for the means of total war by the enemy.  The enemy of western civilization uses the female method of undermining from within by sowing discord, demonizing the leadership, demonizing the norms traditions values and institutions of cultural production, and then promising a big lie that if they were in charge ‘things would be better’.  This is the fantasy of every mother and most women.  Because they desire the world be suited for the reduction of their effort of the neuroticism (worrying, anxiety, fear, impulse) of the female mind, as suits their children – or worse, that suits their status pursuit, whether by virtue-signaling non-aggression under the pretense of care, or hypergamy under the pretense of equality, or hyperconsumption under the pretense of both, if they don’t have children. All of these ‘benevolent facades’ are just selfish demands from males to satisfy their impulses over which – without religion or ritual of some kind, or kinship-female group suppression, or the empiricism that results from having four or more children – they cannot control.  Likewise, male motivation for heroism and desire for status, and access to kindness, affection, sex, reproduction, is obtained by satisfying the selfishness of women that they project as benevolence but are just demands for discounts on consumption because of her necessity of raising fragile offspring while maintaining her maximum market value to women and to men – but primarily to women. So my work takes a very different approach. And that is to increase the suppression of female anti-social behavior, that scales to female warfare, that was converted to a group evolutionary strategy by the Jews, Christians and Muslims, to the same degree that we have suppressed the male anti-social behavior that scale to male warfare, that was converted to a group evolutionary strategy by the Indo Europeans from whom Europeans descend. So where the Northwest Front constitution states isolation and political organization, my work on the law creates a market (court) for the suppression of the female means of anti-social behavior, just as thoroughly as it creates a market (court) for the suppression of male anti-social behavior.  The difference is that I don’t leave out the problem of the ‘unfit’ – and solve that problem too. The pre-war soft-eugenicists were right. The war hard-eugenicists were … wrong. Sorry. So where most if not all constitutions evade law in favor of the law-making process, my constitution turns law into a formal logic that is as rock-solid as mathematics and writing like software programming, to ensure that the female method of civilizational destruction cannot only be suppressed internally but that war is justified in suppression of it externally. So when I say that my work on constitutions is inflexible in law, but that the means of construction of policy (legislation, regulation) is a Chinese menu of choices within that law, though I do recommend a recipe for ‘perfect government’ for people capable of it, you can set up any government you want that suppresses both male and female means of internal anti-social behavior, and anti-societal warfare. Ergo my work os compatible with the NW constitution. It would be compatible for all conservative and libertarian people and for certain most centrist people.  But if you want a free-rider upper cast that parasitically lives off , and obtains power by the redistribution underclass, at the expense of the productive middle classes then you’re going to have to find some other constitution and body of law.