Reciprocity & Propertarianism (John Mark & Curt Doolittle)

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Easy_C said:
And those ambiguities were created because the Judiciary was given too much leeway to legislate from the bench.

By whom?

How can even the Supreme Court rule against the plainly written word of the Constitution without being disbanded?

It's a slow motion coup in plain sight. Not that I'm hating on the American people alone. Across the West we all suffer these tyrannies like sheep.
 

BURNΞR

Pelican
Leonard D Neubache said:
Easy_C said:
And those ambiguities were created because the Judiciary was given too much leeway to legislate from the bench.

By whom?

How can even the Supreme Court rule against the plainly written word of the Constitution without being disbanded?

It's a slow motion coup in plain sight. Not that I'm hating on the American people alone. Across the West we all suffer these tyrannies like sheep.


If the constitution is centered around reciprocity you can't circumvent the constitution. Attention to 16:24 onwards:

 
scorpion said:
None of their analysis or insight is news to anyone who's been paying attention for the past few years. And I don't see the point of advocating a fix by updating the U.S. Constitution. That has such a ridiculously low probability of happening (especially given the type of updates they advocate) that it might as well be impossible.

Basically, I don't see the point of what they're doing. Do they really think shouting into the wind about "Propertarianism" is going to make a damn bit of difference at this point? The die has been cast. The macro trends will not be reversed. The United States as a whole will never return to its former glory. The ship has taken on too much water. Rather than engaging in some pointless Sisyphean effort to keep the ship from sinking with MUH CONSTITUTION you would be better served making sure that you and yours have a nicely outfitted lifeboat.

I like the idea, but I too don't see it happening. The issue is not with setting up the system, because it's better than the US constitution. The problem is with abolishing the old and setting up the new. This won't happen unless you find Superman crashing in your backyard and convince him to topple the currnt leadership with a giant bloodbath, because those buggers will throw everything against you.

My guess is that they want to win over minds. Most people barely register the demographics as being suicidally destructive. They will find out only when it is too late anyway.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Easy_C said:
And those ambiguities were created because the Judiciary was given too much leeway to legislate from the bench.

Leonard is right on this one. You're right that there is too much ambiguity in some cases. The Constitution was a document of compromise between various factions. However, even if you make it clear as day, it's still a piece of paper. What has been happening since the beginning of the Republic is that new powers have been invented and blessed by the court, words are redefined, or most commonly the Constitution is just disregarded. There's no constitutional debate on most laws passed today. The 10th Amendment says that any powers not enumerated belong to the states and the people, and yet the federal government oversees something like 75,000 regulations. Despite a Constitution meant to strictly enumerate powers and confine the scope of the state, the U.S. is now the largest government in the history of the world.

John Mark can be concise and effective at diagnosing problems. He may well be correct that separation is the answer; I lean in that direction myself. But you can't build a society on an immoral people, or replace a real faith with some phony construct. You need law, but more important is a moral people who will follow it.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
Of course you can't.

But keep in mind even the most staunch traditionalists say that the two are inexorably linked. Laws that permit and perpetrate iniquity have serious consequences and tend to build on themselves. The best analogy I can make is to a chipped window and why it's important to get your windshield fixed quickly once you get a small crack from a pebble.

Those huge things you're talking about like the 10th amendment didn't just vanish overnight. They were chipped away at by judiciary activism until the crack in the dam grew large enough for the dam to crumble entirely, and each and every single act of judiciary activism was possible because the Constitution failed to clearly establish the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Easy_C said:
He uses the phrase about "which way the tree falls". What Mark and the others are trying to do is weight the tree on one side so they can control which way it falls when it does and they're doing so very successfully. Him, Fuentes, and the others have perfectly timed this so the ideas can hit mainstream just in time to coincide with dramatically escalating leftist violence that's going to be far beyond 2016.

Call it sour grapes if you want, but I predicted that world war 3 would a be a global civil war starting in 2018, years in advance. I think that prediction has borne out rather well. These Johnny-come-latelies don't cite their sources, credit anybody else as being their intellectual influence, but they seem to have very well polished platforms for directing shekels in their direction.

I don't trust 'em.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
From this time last year:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...lection-will-be-most-violent-american-history

Therefore, if look at that timing, it would appear that 4.3 years from Trump swearing in on January 20th, 2017 brings us to 2021.354. If we throw in all the economic problems we see coming with pensions and a monetary crisis on top of all of that, I would not count of 2020 being a normal presidential election. It may be the most violent event in American political history.

Sources and Influences:

https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/reading-list/
 

kel

Ostrich
War is brewing in "the west", there are little pockets of it like the shit going down in Portland, but I think there are a few years left before it gets really bad. I'm thinking the second half of the 2020s is when shit really hits the fan, where there's no ambiguity, where everyone can look and objectively say "there is widespread war".
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Easy_C said:
...
Those huge things you're talking about like the 10th amendment didn't just vanish overnight. They were chipped away at by judiciary activism until the crack in the dam grew large enough for the dam to crumble entirely, and each and every single act of judiciary activism was possible because the Constitution failed to clearly establish the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Honestly I really think you're failing to see the forest for all the trees in your way.

The limits of arbitrary judicial-based legislation are entirely besides the point. They might be relevant if you had some kind of vague, ambiguous law on your hands but you don't. The judiciary is literally interpreting night as day. Black as white. At that point you don't have laws. You just have everyone pretending you have laws like kids making up the rules of a game as they go along while trying to keep the theme of the game in tact so that everyone doesn't simply quit because they've ended up playing hopscotch when they wanted to play tag.

You cannot write a constitution that prevents this exact same thing happening because the rules by definition are being disregarded.

Let me give you an example. Let's say you went back in time and added a rule to the Constitution that said "anyone found to rule or legislate in breach of this document is sentenced to summary execution by any citizen or citizen group who cares to execute that sentence, upon whom no consequence for this act shall fall".

Well despite this ugly and ham-fisted proposition which smashes directly to the point, you would still be right where you are now. Because the powers that be are not going to simply allow a group of "lawful political assassins" to dictate what is or isn't permitted by law. You snipe a tyrant senator? You're going to jail for the rest of your life or being hanged. You want to try your case in court? They rule against you, regardless of what the plain letter of the law is, because that's what power is. The ability to do as you please provided you don't cross any lines that trigger total rebellion.

They only maintain the pretense of laws and equality under them because it prevents rebellion, and as long as the people are fat and happy enough, nobody cares enough to open their eyes and fight creeping tyranny until they simply cannot bear its consequences anymore. This is precisely why the declaration of Independence didn't say "we have the justification to break away but we're going to make something inviolate and everlasting". No, they said "sometimes shit goes bad and you have to start over".

I have to wonder if this Doolittle fellow would have the humility to accept that no matter what system he constructs it would ultimately be churned up in the very largess it might bring about.

But back to the point. Morality>Laws. Not the other way around. To capture and keep the US as a whole you would literally have to enslave a fair third of the population and strongly suppress another third. If you wanted a moral peoples then it will not come without poverty, either. Fat, sated people with limitless options for diversion do not turn to God in meaningful numbers.

Isn't this kind of idea that you can legislate your way to human perfection precisely the kind of nonsense we ridicule communism for?
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
kel said:
War is brewing in "the west", there are little pockets of it like the shit going down in Portland, but I think there are a few years left before it gets really bad. I'm thinking the second half of the 2020s is when shit really hits the fan, where there's no ambiguity, where everyone can look and objectively say "there is widespread war".

2024-2027.
 

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
https://vdare.com/posts/sam-francis...ll-ice-officers-to-be-murdered-is-free-speech

Here's a good real-life example of what Leonard was talking about. Imagine if this had been a right-wing guy advocating the murder of the Capitol Police, for example. He would undoubtedly be in prison. Just like members of the Proud Boys are currently in prison for defending themselves against Antifa.

We have laws. Good laws. The problem is not a lack of laws, it's a lack of will and mortal fortitude to demand that our laws actually be followed. You can write the most perfect Constitution in the world, and yet it will remain nothing but a piece of paper. It has no power in and of itself. The only thing that really matters is the character of the men who are tasked with interpreting it and following its dictates.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
RIP Propertarianism.


Despite being surrounded by armed guards the dude got cucked by two black dudes who hijacked his loudspeaker and his crowd. He talked about black dicks and he seemingly peed his pants too.

John Mark has now bailed.

This is basically a case study on the difference between leaders and intellectuals. No movement gains real world traction when it's headed by intellectuals with no actual leadership capacity.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
I'm curious why JM bailed. He seemed defensive of it but he probably realized that trying to push this thing with Doolittle is unsalvageable.

He shouldn't have taken down his videos though. The ones which are more analytical and less focused on sales were great. I suspect that he did have some astroturfing although the most likely actor was foreign, not domestic. Advocating for separation is a dangerous message for the elite because if both the threepers and BLM want a split (a lot of the actual grassroots black activists seem more than willing to help push for that split) it changes the dynamics significantly.

For Doolittle I changed my opinion on him being a fed. If he was a fed he wouldn't be completely socially retarded and would at the very least have gotten some training in social engineering that he doesn't seem to have.

I do think the focus on "reciprocity" as a social value is key. I've tested that in places like lefty-infected Discords and it forces them to backpedal into a corner and say things like "I support theft in some cases".
 
Last edited:
I'm curious why JM bailed. He seemed defensive of it but he probably realized that trying to push this thing with Doolittle is unsalvageable.

Goto 6:03 in the implosion video. There is a now deleted screencap from JM's social media explaining his thoughts.

In summary, he says:

1. His family has suffered from being too focused on John Mark stuff.

2. The potential high agency dissident right types (the people he wants to attract; people who lean right) are focused on other things like building businesses.

3. His solution (incentive based; not emotion/idol leader based) requires slow organization building and that isn't his strength.

4. The leftover dissident right types are "clownbabies", are the majority, and therefore, the dissident right will never have a good leader.

5. He feels like his base betrayed him and Curt post July 4th rally.

I give the guy big props for trying to do something positive and he certainly added value to the conversation for sure but I've always been pretty negative about propertarianism in general. It always seemed a bit over complicated and more work than necessary to solve the root problems.

In my view, the US Constitution and current system is largely solid as a baseline blueprint for how to run a government.. It just needs a few big tweaks and some aggressive enforcement. That said, I really liked some of JM's peaceful solution/civil war/"how the right needs to think" analysis videos but I really checked out on the deep analysis propertarianism stuff. Obviously, JM was deeply invested in propertarinism and his association with Curt but I think a lot of his followers/ex-followers are similar to my mindset in that they were more focused on splitting or fighting and less concerned with some abstract unproven political philosophy.

Keep in mind, JM got his first big YouTube nut (1 million views+) and the attention of many new followers via analysis on how civil war would play out in America; NOT on propertarianism. The concept of "reciprocity" was (and still is) a great one but perhaps JM should have just ignored propertarianism/Curt for the most part and focused on practical implementation solutions in how to peacefully break up the USA. You could do 100 videos on that alone since there are a TON of different angles that need to discussed and debated.

In short, when Curt embarrassed himself big time as a leader around a crowd that was largely focused on splitting/fighting (either of which requires a STRONG and PRESENTABLE leader) and JM defended him, the base fled and the movement died. And thus, JM saw the writing on the wall and deleted everything. I guess he is going to sit things out for a bit, chew on some black pills for a while, and then try to re-brand at a later time after some reflection. Or maybe, he out of the game for good. We'll see I suppose.
 
Last edited:

Easy_C

Peacock
Yep. The propertarian salesmanship stuff was putting the cart before the horse. It’s an advantage to have alternative ideas in place but it’s not a good idea to be focused on going that far in depth until you know that a good way to prevent the mad max
Event can be implemented. That work needs to be done by wonks working behind the scenes with open but NOT centerpiece discussion
 

BURNΞR

Pelican
Was pretty shocked this happened. With 2020 being the nightmare accelerant it is i thought propertarianism would become bigger than ever.

From what I gather this is what happened. The P crowd invited civnats, boogalootarians, muh 2nd amendment people. Some of these invited BLM people. Curt gave a speech - he sounded autistic giving it. He even put on a accent to sound like he was larping in an Hollywood action film. Crowd is still hooting and cheering him on. Then, 2 BLM activist go up to Curt and confront him and accuse him of being a racist. Curt rebuffs him with "i-im not r-racist". The tough looking dudes with body armor and assault weapons just watch beside Curt as he tries cleverly to de-escalate the situation by saying he has no intention to fight blacks as "you guys are much stronger and have bigger dicks". He pulls a Bernie and hands the mic to one of the BLM guys who goes onto give his 2 cents in front of the crowd. Not only does nobody step in to forcibly kick them out many of them hoot and cheer the BLM guy on his 'speech'.

Going forward this is my analysis:

-Im not a mind reader but from what I've read it sounds like John Mark quit after looking at how inept his crowd of supporters are. He was also demoralised by his channel not being able to break past 100k (he said he needed 250k). He was a family man sacrificing and risking his family life and figured it wasn't worth it anymore.

-Curt is an intellectual genius but he has very little charisma and he even admitted after that he has never been a suitable frontman for Propertarianism. Im not sure whether that is sweat or if he actually urinated himself. If it is the latter I'm thinking it is due to his age related bladder control rather than a response to fear. His ideas are still valid regardless of this optics disaster. From what I can see, every side of the political arena is pointing and laughing, even the dissident right.

-I don't know what will happen to P now. John Mark was like torch bearer sent from the heavens and not only has he quit he also pulled off all his videos off YouTube. Curt is still going to continue but not try to be a front man anymore. He is now trying to do damage control online.

-I think it was a bad idea for a street speech this early in the game. I guess they figured they had to take their ideas to the street because of YouTube algorithms censoring them from new viewership. Curt kowtowing to the BLM guys was smart from a survival/safety perspective but the optics are an epic fail of a shit test, a massive demonstration of low value.
 

Radoste

Sparrow
Was pretty shocked this happened.
Really? I was totally unsurprised. Why? Because it exalts legalistic ethics and robotic thinking. Of course it would only attract fringe-dwelling autists and lolbergs.

The character of the people ideas come from and the people who follow them are pretty good metrics to judge things by, even without looking at the fancy website.

Still, I spent hours watching John Mark's videos and reading the website last year and again recently, and I rejected it then and now. It's decidely anti-spiritual, which is a red flag for something claiming to be a solution in an era has a mighty need of genuine spirituality. It aims to be a vast all-encompassing mental paradigm, like a computer program, in a world where technologizing and bureaucratizing of all aspects of life and the resulting mass impersonal systems are already among our biggest problems. And we're supposed to believe that treating the entirety of our actions and knowledge like this is going to make it better?

No, Propertarianism was just one man's autistic pet project to try and order everything so that everybody stops being so darn "irrational" (i.e. human).
 
Last edited:
Top