25 Sunday Mar 2018
Power is available under democracy that is not available under constitutional monarchy.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-point-of-racialization-of-different-ethnic-groups
06 Thursday Apr 2017
Ninguna civilización realmente entiende sus estrategias grupales de evolución. Pero nosotros podemos hacer el intento de comprender la nuestra.
Cuando los arios combinaron el bronce, la rueda y el caballo, lograron cubrir grandes distancias con velocidad. Se arriesgaron, y el caballo, la carreta y las armaduras eran costosas. Pero le permitían a los hombres ser depredadores de otros hombres así como defenderse de otros hombres. Así que los hombres utilizaron esta tecnología con fines militares para expandir su dominio desde la China Occidental hasta España.
Resulta que si los hombres son militarmente capaces de desarrollar una casta guerrera profesional, capturar y conquistar territorio y esclavizar a habitantes primitivos de los territorios conquistados para ponerlos a trabajar, eso resultó ser una industria rentable. Pero solo un subgrupo de la población es apto para ser gobernado de una manera costo-efectiva y con bajo riesgo.
Así que mientras las tribus consanguíneas habían tolerado amplias variaciones en personalidades, sus gobernantes no lo toleraron, y encontraron a los más problemáticos, agresivos y la más constante persecución de las partes más aisladas, los gobernantes lograron con el hombre lo que lograron con los perros, cerdos, vacas y caballos: la domesticación progresiva del hombre animal.
La esclavitud es costosa, eres responsable de todos los costos, incluida la servidumbre. Y sólo se toman las ganancias de alguna parte del proceso del trabajo del esclavo. Cuando se toman parte de esas ganancias y se les paga, se utiliza el crédito fiduciario de manera dilucional para otorgarles a los ex-esclavos-ahora empleados el poder de consumo y capturar las verdaderas ganancias de su producción.
Así que con el pasar de los siglos nuestros ancestros han combinado el ahorcar desde el 1% hasta la mitad de la población de forma anual, retrasar la tasa reproductiva y limitar la reproducción con el señorío, duros inviernos para matar de hambre a los débiles y flojos, se libraron guerras de forma consuetudinaria con la promesa de obtener botín, y la conspiración de la Iglesia para debilitar a las clases inferiores a finales de la edad media. Eso logró que la población europea fuera la progenie de la clase media genética.
El cristianismo proveyó poco más que la excusa para justificar a los arios: La industria por la cual la clase marcial domestica a los hombres para su ganancia. Esto fue seguido por el yugo del hombre blanco- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos de la moralidad. Lo cual fue seguido por el proyecto americano- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos heroicos. Lo cual fue seguido por el humanismo democrático secular de la postguerra- un restablecimiento de la cristiandad en términos seculares. Y ahora la tendencia más reciente es el neo-conservadurismo: un restablecimiento del judaísmo en términos arios.
Ahora démosle la vuelta esto y digamos que porque hemos domesticado al hombre, hemos mantenido el tripartidismo, practicado el gobierno descontrolado para cada clase, y creado mercados para todo, la ley común natural, una definición eterna de la verdad, hemos arrastrado a la humanidad de su ignorancia, superstición, pobreza, esclavitud, enfermedad y elmiedo constante de las vicisitudes de la naturaleza.
Hemos hecho de este mundo mucho más que cualquier otra civilización.
Y lo hicimos no porque fuéramos los primeros en hacerlo, sino porque lo hicimos más RÁPIDAMENTE y EFICIENTEMENTE que otros, porque aprendimos a aprehender y adaptarnos a pesar de ser una pequeña población al borde de la edad de bronce.
El problema que afronta la humanidad es que no hemos terminado el trabajo. Nosotros constreñimos los intentos de Alemania de completar la formación de la civilización hanseática, y creamos una guerra civil que casi nos destruyó y permitimos la segunda invasión ideológica de Occidente en la figura de la pseudociencia, y ahora estamos trayendo abordo a millones de personas con las que hemos librado guerras durante mil cuatrocientos años para prevenir la diseminación de su ideología cancerosa – una versión más venenosa de la profesionalización de la mentira.
Así que calladamente seremos vencidos por las sombras o continuaremos domesticando a la humanidad o regresaremos a la domesticación del hombre, obteniendo ganancias de dicha domesticación, y continuando la trascendencia de muchos, por medio del uso de los bien más costoso que cualquier civilización jamás haya desarrollado: la verdad.
La democracia funciona si se desarrolla bajo la figura de un voto por familia, en un estado pequeño y homogéneo, bajo una sociedad agraria, y si tenemos las cuatro casas gubernamentales bajo el modelo anglosajón: Monarquía, aristocracia, negocios, industria y la Iglesia (proletaria, aseguradora y cuidadora de los enfermos).
Porque las clases y las familias tienen suficiente en común para usar el gobierno mayoritario como un medio para seleccionar prioridades para financiarse con recursos escasos. Pero la democracia en la que hombres, mujeres y clases poseen votos por igual solo resulta en el gobierno parasitario proletario con todos los incentivos negativos para que las sociedades saquen lo peor de si. Podemos usar el sistema de gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar prioridades entre pueblos con intereses comunes pero no podemos usar el gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar preferencias entre pueblos con intereses dispares. Es ilógico
Los datos señalan que si las mujeres no votaran, estaríamos bien. Las mujeres expresaron sus estrategias reproductivas en la política bajo la democracia. Ellas deshicieron a la civilización occidental. Es una píldora dura de tragar.
El paternalismo y los derechos de propiedad, el jurado y el testimonio honesto y la familia nuclear absoluta, junto con la reproducción retrasada bajo el señorío fueron medios por los cuales logramos suprimir la reproducción de las clases inferiores, y controlamos el comportamiento destructivo de la mujer- reproducirse a su voluntad, de forma aleatoria, y causando que su tribu sufra las consecuencias de sus impulsos Malthusianos.
Las mujeres seleccionan una estrategia reproductiva tipo “r” (volumen), no una estrategia reproductiva tipo “K” (excelencia). La civilización requiere la supresión del parasitismo masculino (agresión) así como la supresión del parasitismo femenino (reproducción).
Nosotros deshicimos la historia indoeuropea y la familia como la unidad política central, con una sola actuación. Así que, ¿Cómo construimos compromisos en vez de opresiones? Diferentes casas, bien sea físicas, y representativas o electrónicas y virtuales para aquellos grupos con estrategias reproductivas distintas.
Por supuesto, pero el chismorreo es barato. La violencia es costosa -aunque muy rápida y efectiva, y las preferencias se demuestran, no se declaran.
No hay una solución astuta, no hay una respuesta fácil. O usamos la violencia para exigir un cambio o perdemos nuestra civilización para siempre.
Nosotros o agitamos a una pequeña minoría para que eleve los costos de carga de nuestros competidores, sobrecargando su capacidad, enfrentándonos a la pseudo ciencia y la mentira, y elevamos el costo de su colonización o nosotros hemos probado que sólo estamos hablando y no actuando.
El problema con la revolución es que en sí misma es una expresión de frustración. No trae cambios buenos necesariamente. Y algunas revoluciones son peores que sus estados originales: Francia y Rusia son buenos ejemplo de ello.
Para implementar cambios uno tiene que tener algo que exigir. Y lo que uno exija debe satisfacer los intereses de mucha gente. Esas demandas tienen que ser posibles y ser puestas en procesos operativos que habremos de llamar “instituciones”. Ellas tienen que ser posible para persistir, a pesar de las creencias de sus participantes. Así que debemos crear los incentivos adecuados.
Con la verdad basta. A diferencia del chisme, el culpar y acusar. Y a diferencia de la pseudociencia y la propaganda, la verdad es costosa. La verdad es el arma argumentativa más poderosa jamás desarrollada. Y el propietarismo nos enseña a exigir la verdad y a decir la verdad.
No es sabio entrar en los detalles de las tácticas. Pero en general. La idea es ésta: ¿Cuántos días de electricidad, agua, alimentos, y días de “orden” están en la línea de producción todos los días? Si cosas malas pasan en Ucrania o Rusia, el 40% de los alimentos los produce su pueblo. Todos podemos regresar a los campos.
¿Que ocurre en el mundo desarrollado si se éste se altera?
Vivimos en los tiempos más frágiles de la historia. Ya no es necesario que las masas tomen las calles para hacer la revolución. Se requiere de un número pequeño de personas que incrementen la fricción de la vida diaria. Nunca ha sido más fácil crear una revolución. Sólo necesitamos un plan, autoridad moral y algo que exigir.
Y es nuestro trabajo el otorgárselo a la gente.
17 Friday Mar 2017
Posted in 4.3.5.4-Economics and Trade War, Uncategorized
STATE BUSINESS ALLIANCES
Forms of subsidy to companies that engage in international trade produces multipliers. The math has been done. That’s why it continues. In fact, throughout history, the state-biz partnership in international trade has been a requirement at worst, and the central source of economic competition at best.
The problem with state-business relations occurs when:
(a) consumers have no standing in court against violations of reciprocity in the domestic market, and
(b) politicians grant rights and privileges in the domestic market
(c) when zombie (dead) corporations are kept alive for political reasons.
In the american case, corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. But our total tax rate is relatively low. Most advanced countries ( meaning those with audit-able financial systems) use VAT tax increases to offset corporate taxes. But you can easily see where that goes….
Libertarianism benefits from a little knowledge of economics, with a heavy dose of obscurantist moralizing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And that is why there are many passionate libertarians, and only a half dozen libertarian ‘intellectuals’. Its because once you possess more than a little knowledge you either choose conservatism (long term and eugenic) or social democracy (short term and dysgenic).
07 Tuesday Mar 2017
Posted in 1.6-The Pattern of History, 3.5-Testimony
UNSOLICITED OPINION – THE ANSWER TO THE PETERSON HARRIS DEBATE
(philosophy)(science)(truth)(decidability)(western uniqueness)
ABSTRACT
The current debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris over the constitution of truth propositions and whether or not they can be used as a means of decidability between frames of reference has raised the most important issue of our time to a discourse between public intellectuals who the citizenry might learn something substantial from. However, both Peterson and Harris lack the vocabulary and arguments with which to resolve their conflict. In this short article, I’ve provided the terminology, argument, and judgement for both of their positions.
VIDEO HERE
SECTION I
1 – For the most ancient of reasons, by accident of geography, and accident of technology, the West alone relies on Sovereignty as its organizing principle (means decidability of last resort – or on archaic parlance: metaphysical value judgment.).
2 – Choosing Sovereignty requires natural law (perfect reciprocity) to resolve disputes (via-negativa).
3 – And conversely choosing Sovereignty requires markets in everything to organize cooperation. (via-positiva) (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies)
4 – Markets allow for cooperation on means despite different ends, given different abilities, different resources, and different specializations.
5 – The combination of Sovereignty, Natural Common Law, Markets in Everything, and the universal indoctrination of men into ‘reporting‘ testimony in militia service, allowed the west to adapt and evolve faster than the rest.
We (the West) are not always first, but we are fastest at defeating the red queen. This is the origin of western man. Not Hegelian Literary ‘Spirit’ but a group evolutionary strategy for those who combined horse, bronze, and wheel to create a social, economic, and political order we call aristocracy on the Eurasian Plain, where agrarian production was widely distributed and difficult (prohibitively expensive) to organize into a central administration as did the flood river valleys. And where nothing – not language, not literature and law, not religion, or not class, not power, was conflated.
SECTION II
1 – Philosophies allow for the production of argument and decidability within a domain.
2 – The search for Truth seeks the production of argument and decidability regardless of domain.
3 – Deflationary truth allows us to construct truthful arguments regardless of domain.
4 – Deflationary, operational, and promissory (truthful) arguments can be warrantied for due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – as well as demand productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. Using this form of truth, it is extremely difficult for false argument to survive due diligence against all dimensions of the human ability to reason.
5 – Science is not a positive, but a negative research program: the means by which we warranty that we have eliminated ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit from our speech.
6 – Ergo science when applied to both categorically deterministic (physical) and categorically dynamic (heuristic social / cognitive) disciplines functions as the means of decidability regardless of domain. i.e.: the discipline of science when sufficient in scope of due diligence, produces truth candidates regardless of a division of inter-temporal perception, experience, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. i.e.: where in a society of markets (choice) in everything.
SECTION III
1 – In each era of transformation the “truthful” eugenic aristocracy has been opposed by the dysgenic practitioners of deceit:
a) The Bronze Age Origin of heroism/paternalism/Aristocracy – the invention of oral authoritarian religion.
b) The Iron Age Origin of Reason – the invention of written, conflationary, authoritarian – scriptural religion as law, distributed by organize religion.
c) The Steel Age of Empiricism (bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson,) – was opposed by the invention of printed, argumentative rebellion: (Rousseau/Moral, Kant/Rational, Mendelssohn/Legal.)
d) The Age of Automation and the reformation of the social sciences ( Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Menger, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Nietzche, and the Romanticists ) Was opposed by the invention of pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt School, Mises, Keynes, Rand/Rothbard, Strauss and The host of Postmoderns, and Macro Economists.)
2 – In each era, despite the fact that humanity is transformed by the aristocratic (martial), order, the opposition generally seems to ‘win’ through numbers. This causes anything from a stagnation to a dark age.
3 – The challenge of our time is the industrialization of lying made possibly by automation and media in the pseudoscientific era. Combined with the failure of the west to advance ‘science’ (Truthfulness) sufficiently to suppress the (desirable) lies.
4 – The solution to the industrialization of lying is the demand for warranty of due diligence in law, economics, and politics in the information we bring to market – just as we require warranty of due diligence in the products and services we submit to the market (a commons).
5 – The returns on the suppression of the industrialization of lying by operationalism will be greater than the returns on the returns on the suppression of mysticism by empiricism. every lie or falsehood produces a friction against human reason, just as every atomic rule created a greater friction than was produced by the transformation to general rules (science).
6 – Definition of PSEUDOSCIENCE: Followers know that I use a rigorous definition of what constitutes scientific speech and therefore truthful speech. My use of the term ‘pseudoscience’ refers to the addition of or subtraction of information that must be complete but unloaded in order to render decidability across contexts. Scientific speech requires due diligence against subtraction(cherry picking) and addition (loading, framing, overloading). To perform due diligence of truthfulness requires we test each possible dimension of speech.
1 – categorical consistency – Identity – non-conflation
2 – logical consistency – internal consistency, non-contradiction.
3 – empirical consistency – external correspondence – falsification
4 – existential consistency – operational language – consistency.
5 – reciprocity-consistency – moral reciprocity of Property in Toto.
6 – scope consistency – full accounting and specified limits.
These questions are easily testable in a court of law. Any essay, article, paper, contract, or constitution may be written in these terms. The intuitionist/operationalist movements failed (unfortunately) because they were discovered in categorically static math, logic, and physical science, where they are of less utility, but neither discovered nor applied in heuristic and therefore categorically dynamic sciences, where they are necessary: law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy.
What I have tried to briefly suggest here is that grammar and terminology alone are nearly sufficient to reverse the industrialization of lying in law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. (See research on EPrime for example). And that extension of the involuntary warranty of due diligence that we currently apply to products and services can be extended to all market, commons, and political speech. We are saturated with lies and falsehoods, and they are cheap to produce and expensive to defeat. This is the reason for the success of the era of pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, and outright lying.
SECTION IV
1 – In the second great transformation (the ancient world) we developed three attempts at decidability with different appeals to coercive decidability: Supernatural (religious) Mythic and Theological, Ideal/Supernormal(Platonic) Literary, and Demonstrated(existential) Historical. The Supernatural attempts to solve the problem of authority by appeal to a superhuman deity. The supernormal by appeal to ideals or utopias. The historical, by appeal to demonstrated existence: survival from competition. It is the sovereign, existential, that survives competition that comprises the uniqueness of western thought: we preserve the right to choose: sovereignty – for there is no authority among sovereigns.
2 – Peterson’s conflation in the literary (Platonic) tradition is anti western and unnecessary. It is the competition between conflationary narrative analogy, and deflationary operational criticism that assists us in identifying truth candidates. All civilizations that practice conflation stagnate. Literature is sufficient for the loading and framing and experiential without resorting to truth claims. Conflation of the good, true, and beautiful is a literary technique, and is helpful if not necessary for the immature or unable mind. But only if the mind is also taught how to truth test conflationary statements such that the true, the good, and the beautiful can be tested, so that the citizenry can distinguish between truth and lie, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. It is through this method of conflation that the culture wars were conducted.
3 – Harris‘ cherry-picks in the pseudoscientific tradition, fails to account for changes in state of the full scope of capital, and the lost opportunities for productive voluntary exchange. (This will take some explaining – outside of the scope of this paper.) Most frequently he gives parasitic action a pass if he agrees with it. Humans accumulate capital, and humans cooperate to accumulate capital more readily. And humans evolve cooperative social orders to accumulate capital even more rapidly – by the production of commons. Harris’ presumed ‘goods’ are cosmopolitan, destroy accumulated intergenerational capital, and produce eugenic outcomes that over time destroy the possibility of not only choice, and prosperity, but of transcendence (evolution). Reality is not kind. There are no free rides. And that is an uncomfortable, scientific, truth. We must continue to defeat the red queen.
CLOSING
Science (truth) rarely tells us what we desire, it merely gives us power to choose that which is desirable in fact over that which is desirable in pretense, or that which is a mere deception.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(BTW: One or two years ago Harris issued a challenge as to whether morality could be scientifically expressed. I lacked the time (or inclination) to do so, but it can be (easily and thoroughly and irrefutably). And it is just as dehumanizing as the work of Darwin and Copernicus.)
19 Thursday Jan 2017
Posted in 5.4.0-The Genders, Alberto R Zambrano U, Classes, Español (Spanish), Genders, Races
El Problema:
La regresión constante de la calidad de los hombres por debajo de la media y las desviaciones estándar crean la necesidad para que existan presiones persistentes que mantengan una necesidad genética en los grupos humanos. Esto quiere decir que los grupos pueden perder calidad muy fácilmente en cualquier momento que permitan mezclarse entre sí o que haya un cambio en las tasas de reproducción dentro de los grupos.
Valor:
Los hombres se pueden adaptar a cualquier circunstancia sin que tengan que mutar de forma evolutiva, pero debido a la simple frecuencia en la que se expresan los caracteres de una población en un lugar, espacio y tiempo determinado en la forma que la naturaleza los requiere. Esto trae como consecuencia que el hombre sea altamente capaz de adaptarse como organismo. Nosotros nos adaptamos cuando aprendemos, por medio de normas sociales, y por tasas de reproducción entre clases. Porque las clases son y siempre han sido expresiones genéticas superior y e inferiores.
Especialización:
Tal parece que todos los hombres hemos estado involucrados en el proceso de erradicar a todos los competidores del Homo sapiens sapiens, y luego nos comenzamos a subdividir en razas.
Existen cuatro razas principales: Negroide, mongoloide, caucasoide: Europeo (Del Norte, de los bosques y llanuras) Caucasoide, Iraní (sureño, del desierto y las estepas) Caucasoide y muchas otras sub razas como las semitas (africano/iraní-caucasoide) todas las cuales tuvieron que experimentar de manera directa un proceso de especialización. Las diferencias entre estas razas están descritas y son explicables desde un punto de vista endocrino, ya que los humanos “crecen” y los cambios endocrinos modifican las expresiones de ciertos caracteres, comportamientos y apariencias entre las razas.
Es por ello que:
Esto es bastante sencillo y son un juego de reglas q que no requieren experimentación genética (mutaciones) para que evolucionen las diferencias entre grupos de otra forma que no sea la expresión de caracteres.
¿Cuál es el secreto del hombre occidental entonces?
Los hombres occidentales somos los pueblos que más hemos puesto en práctica la eugenesia, “para mejorar nuestra raza”. Eso no nos hace mejores per se. Simplemente hemos matado a todos lo peor y lo malo durante tanto tiempo que muchas familias buenas y mejores tribus han surgido y sobrevivido que las tribus y familias malas.
La revolución industrial cambió todo eso
La democracia cambió esta antigua estrategia cultural porque cambiamos de una familia productiva (no sólo un hombre) un voto, a votos igualitarios para todos – y desde que las mujeres se volvieron reproductivamente irresponsables (disgénicas) y las clases bajas se volvieron reproductivamente dañinas (disgénicas también), y juntos esos dos factores son más numerosos pero no superiores en calidad, implementaron políticas que revirtieron la excelencia genética que alguna vez tuvo Occidente.
Hemos experimentado una “explosión” (efecto Flynn) que luce estadísticamente como un dispositivo que mejora la nutrición y distribución de las clases inferiores. Sin embargo este efecto puede ser neutralizado (revertido) ya que las tasas de reproducción de las clases inferiores continúan en expansión. Es probable que la tasa reproductiva de las clases inferiores disminuya conforme los caracteres genéticos negativos continúen perpetúandose, pero eso es cuestión de un número no determinado de generaciones y mutaciones indeterminadas.
Es así de sencillo
Es necesario poner en práctica políticas de eugenesia.
No se puede tener libertad y prosperidad si no se tiene una civilización eugénica y racialmente homogénea.
18 Wednesday Jan 2017
Posted in 3.6-Politics, Uncategorized
El problema no es la democracia (entendida como la elección para el liderazgo), el problema recae en una combinación de factores.
Pero en los mercados amplios, como las sociedades mercantiles, los contratos son la solucion para que las partes que conforman una sociedad puedan resolver sus diferencias y llegar a acuerdos en los cuales sus intereses compiten, en donde los gastos de los recursos son amplios, los contratos le ponen un coto a la expansión de la deuda. Así que en vez dxe tener una democracia mayoritaria de una sóla camara, nuestros ancestros crearon cámaras de representantes para cada clase, para que las clases pudieran crear intercambios en vez de gobernar una encima de la otra. Las castas y clases crearon mercados para la construcción de bienes entre las calses, de la misma manera que crearon un mercado para el consumo de bienes y servicios: Las Ciudaddes.
De la misma manera crearon un mercado para el liderazgo al idear el voto. De igual forma crearon un mercado para resolver las disputas, y a eso le pusieron el nombre de sistema judicial o imperio de la ley.
Como podrán ver, la democracia sólo puede funcionar como un mercado y sólo si restauramos las instituciones de los mercados, en vez de crear instituciones que destruyen a los mercados.
Casas de gobierno múltiples (familias, negocios, territorios, monarquías con poder de veto sobre las leyes) pueden crear y sostenter una democracia, de otra forma, la democracia es un medio por el cual fraudulentamente podemos legitimizar la formación de tiranías monopólicas.
¿Por que es tan difícil de entender? Porque las (((academias))) han enseñado pseudociencias en vez de ciencias sociales.
Curt Doolitlle
La Filosofía de la Aristocracia.
El Instituto Propietarista.
Kiev, Ucrania.
Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.
26 Monday Dec 2016
Posted in 3.5-Testimony, Moritz Bierling
(Bill Joslin – December 17 at 9:38pm)
There is sooo much in this small conversation!:
Curt Doolittle: A sentence does not speak. A speaker speaks a sentence. A sentence is not false. the speaker’s statement is false.
Curt Doolittle: now you understand why we say ‘is true’ rather than “i promise” – to deceive.
Moritz Bierling: Yeah, you’re borrowing objectivity for your personal statement.
Curt Doolittle: I tend to, and I try to encourage others to, think about the information that is present and the information that is missing, and the incentives to remove information. or claim information exists that does not.
We are somewhat vulnerable because the means by which we transfer meaning (substitution) is also the means by which we deceive (false substitution)
09 Friday Dec 2016
Posted in 3.1-Introduction, Anti-Philosophy, Languages (Precision), Law, Sequences, Uncategorized
The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”
Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY
Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics
Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE
Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology
Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD
Ethics, morality, law, economics
Law of Testimony – THE TRUE
Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric
Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL
Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness
–Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
06 Tuesday Dec 2016
Posted in 1.2-Uniqueness, Uncategorized
—“Aristocracy creates sovereignty*: the prevention of monopoly by the enforcement of markets.”— James Augustus Berens
30 Wednesday Nov 2016
Posted in 1.7-The Solution (Promise), 3.6-Politics, Core
The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:
1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.
And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.
3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce.
But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’.
So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.
Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 4.2-Construction, P04-Law, Sequences, Uncategorized
If you respect life, limb, property, commons, norm, and law, you obtain the insurance of juridical defense: rule of law.
If you produce income, pay taxes, you gain access to membership in the Jury.
If you acquire property, you marry, and you have children, you gain access to membership in the house of common people.
If you Own a business,employ > 50 people,or manage an enterprise, and employ > 1000 people, you gain access to membership in the H. of Commerce.
If you govern a state you gain access to membership to the House of Lords (Territories).
If you demonstrate none of these, you possess juridical defense, but no influence against your peers, since voting is violence.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in Law, P04-Law, Uncategorized
Nov 11, 2016 10:38pm
Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.
(That might be hard to catch without pondering a bit.)
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 5.7.3 Reformation of Education
Roughly speaking we spend 10K per student per year, which varies from a low of 7k in Utah to a high of 20k in NY, plus an additional 2k per student at the federal level’s department of education. I don’t know the state overhead numbers.
As far as I can tell there is zero value provided by every single individual above the practicing teacher. As far as I can tell the entire academic establishment teaches pseudoscience in order to justify greater expenditures and higher salaries – since teaching is a pretty simple interpersonal craft more dependent upon the individual teacher’s character and abilities than any particular methodology. Teaching no subject is difficult if taught in the context of the historical narrative, and applied through repetition with natural language.
My suggestion would be to do away with all administration in the country entirely, require teachers to form sub-s corporations holding any physical plant (school) as an asset, and require each of them to carry insurance-of-performance like lawyers and accountants, series seven holders, and bonded professionals.
Deliver purchasing power parity vouchers to each student depending upon his region. Allow students and parents to shop for schools and entrepreneurs to form new ones.
This will drive students into schools that offer different teaching environments for different temperaments and in combination will restore normative behavior to the population and commons.
An homogenous germanic protestant middle class population is far different from a diverse population from different gene pools that mature at different rates to different depths. Humans do not ‘grow’ a the same rate in all senses. Nor are we endowed with equal abilities and challenges. And each must be taught as his biology allows.
REALLOCATION OF TIME TO HOME AND COMMONS
There is no evidence that education of more than two to three hours a day produces any value whatsoever. There is substantial evidence that education produces infantilization and ignorance. And that a few hours a day in the late morning, and then continuous exposure to life, family, friends, commons, business and industry provides higher returns in maturity and abilities. Returning children to the labor force is more important than adding mothers to it.
We have to understand that vast numbers of women entering the workplace was not a net add. It merely reduced replacment rates, pushed men in to higher risk jobs at lower pay, forced the west to import underclasses, and force us to lie about equality of people in traits and abilities, and the only net gain was letting one generation retire early, instead of maintaining part time, light burdent work that kept them mobile, healthy, and engaged in life.
CURRICULUM
I’ve written elsewhere on cirriculum extensively, largely to eliminate pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, propaganda, and outright lies, and to return to evidentiary knoweldge.
The net is that we teach people poorly and pseudoscientifically, when the process of education is actually quite trivial.
Needless to say teachiung is a craft and teachers have talents for it or they don’t. But the process is very simple: narrative for context, basic operations, higher explanations and patterns, and repetition of all using natural lanaguage. In the enlightenment and especially after 1920 there appears to have been a rapid expansion of the ‘crafts’ claiming academic pretenses, and incorporating pseudoscientific language into all the ‘crafts’. Many of these ‘crafts’ are in the ‘liberal arts’ and ‘social sciences’ including education. But tehy are mere crafts consisting of a very small number of basic operations, the most important of which is subjective analysis of mental states, and the attempt to communicate how to extend that mental state.
This is not a science. It is a hand-craft that can be raised to an art.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.7.1-Orders, Uncategorized
—“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.
There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.
Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.
Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke
(NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:
(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;
Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.
I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.
If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 1.2-Uniqueness, Sequences, Uncategorized
(worth repeating)
1) SOVEREIGNTY (leads to)
2) PROPERTY IN TOTO (leads to)
3) TESTIMONIAL TRUTH (leads to)
4) DEFLATIONARY/DECONFLATIONARY, (leads to)
5) REASON, RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, TESTIMONIALISM (leads to)
6) MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, (leads to)
7) DEFEATING THE RED QUEEN (leads to)
6) TRANSCENDENCE.
0) THE BIRTH OF THE WEST: SOVEREIGNTY.
THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS
1) RELIGION: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS.
(corrected with aristotelian reason, stoic and roman law)
2) CHRISTIANITY: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE WESTERN INDO-EUROPEANS
(corrected with empiricism, and anglo common law)
3) COSMOPOLITANISM: THE SECOND INFANTILIZATION OF THE WEST. AND THE NEW WEST.
(corrected with testimonialism, and propertarian natural law)
WHY IS IT WE MUST DE-INFANTILIZE MAN IN EVERY GREAT ERA?
27 Sunday Nov 2016
THE FUTURE IS JUST A CHOICE. RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY: RULE.
We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.”
You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Nov 15, 2016 10:40am
Religion is a NECESSARY institution for the provision of decidability by narrative, which is the loosest theoretical structure we currently know how to construct.
The question is whether we claim religious narratives are true(history), are myths(parables), or are supernatural(falsehoods).
History and Myths are enough without resorting to lies.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 6.2-Debate (argument), Uncategorized
START THE NEGOTIATION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PREFERRING WARFARE
Always make sure the opposition understands the choices that you prefer are those that are very undesirable to them. Never enter a negotiation with a presumption of achieving a rational compromise. Instead set the terms of your negotiation at the limits of your preference.
Our current preference is to end democracy, and rule you for profit. If you are governed by natural law but have no access to political power (violence) then this is acceptable. But you have demonstrated a desire to circumvent natural law and use violence, of the state to enslave and diminish us. Therefore we will reciprocate and happily profit from you, but deprive you of the violence you are too infantile and parasitic to master.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Markets are simply the only means of preserving asymmetry and removing asymmetry of power and information. Courts are the only means of preserving asymmetry of warranty of performance.
I don’t think markets are subordinate to hierarchy in any sense other than I think that they themselves prohibit hierarchy by permitting the meritocratic rise and fall of the classes by means of DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS.
I don’t think a market for commons divided by the classes of production is a hierarchy, it is just a means of recognizing the forms of production that the meritocratic families have managed to produce and hold onto: families, business, enterprises, territories, and monarchy.
The fact that there is greater SCALE OF MERIT in each class is simply a fact of the market operating to ensure that we demonstrate the greatest rotation and maintain the families businesses, enterprises, and institutions, with the greatest merit.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 7.09.2-Secession
Nov 15, 2016 1:19pm
the problem with succession is insufficient planning. people need to visualize a future in which they have greater options. secession will provide the greatest bounty of opportunity since the lousiana purchase let loose the hordes and collapsed the european economy.
if we combined secession with testimonialism (requirement for truthful speech) it would add multiples to the opportunities created.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion
There is a difference between a cost of entry into a religion and the content of the falsehoods in the religion. Many cults do not ask us to pay physical costs, but to deny reality as the cost of entry.
In fact, is that not the entire premise of the monotheistic religions? The price of entry is faith in falsehood? A cost of non-correspondence with reality? The signal of trustworthiness to others is the likewise denial? The shared lie?
There exist amazing cults (stoicism), questionable cults (Buddhism), ignorance creating cults (Christianity and Islam), immorality creating cults (Judaism), and even worse cults that teach even worse lies.
There is no need for lies. History, myth, man, and nature are beauty enough and wonder enough without the need for lies.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.7.1-Orders, 4.3.9.7-Slavery, Uncategorized
THE EVOLUTION OF SLAVERY
Slavery exists wherever exit, and return to subsistence, is practically impossible.
Slavery: violence slave
Serfdom: land slave
Employee: wage slave
Consumer: credit slave
Citizen: tax slave
The only freedom is food, water, and shelter, self-sufficiency, with participation in the market purely voluntary.
And only commissions on transactions payment for the commons.
Yet all of us must be paid for policing of the commons if we police it – dividends.
With self-sufficiency and payment for commons we gain liberty. All else is slavery.
Roughly speaking each person could take 10k in dividends at present. Between self-sufficiency and 10k in dividends on our continuous investment in the commons, we would possess liberty.
Otherwise we’re just farmed.
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 5.4.0-The Genders, Women, Men, Relationships
(hmmm… well, lets do a propertarian analysis of that question)
—“How do you feel about mannerbunds?”—Harrison Baker
Well you know, I tend to stay away from silly terminology and instead make operationally testable statements.
men evolved to work in groups of brothers to herd women, hold territory, and kill competitors and take their stuff.
this requires both cooperation: shared risk, and loyalty: elimination of defectors and parasites, and a division of spoils preserving both cooperation, loyalty, and the punishment of defectors and cheats.
civilization is the result of teh accumulated knowledge and institutions that allow us to scale this system to ever larger and ever more competitive circumstances.
in this sense, yes, the bond between men that we traditionally call the ‘intitiatic brotherhood of soldiers’ is in fact the source of what we call ‘civilization;: cooperation at very large scales.
But we could just as likely say that it’s the need for men to bind to herd women and hold territory and develop institutions that is the source of civilization.
or we could say that it is man’s reaction to the untrustworthiness of women that is the origin of civilization since all we do is invent better farms in which to herd our women at lower cost to us.
Or we could say that women are untrustworthy in order to force us to build good farms (nests) for them in which they can nest. And that it is women’s untrustworthiness that forces us to cooperate and create nesting areas for them.
Roll that little model around in your head for a while? 😉
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 1.7-The Solution (Promise), The New Right, Uncategorized
(this ought to get me in trouble) (important piece)
Don’t dis on black or other impulsive peoples, we have white trash too. Blacks just haven’t organized to cull their herd as much as we have. They didn’t have winters. The entire warm zone of the planet consists not of failed states but of people who failed to cull the herd.
Don’t dis on Jewish people. We have vociferous gossiping parasitic white people too – most of our women. Jews organized to specialize in verbal creation of the opportunity for parasitism through the use of gossip and suggestion. To maintain Jewish separatism, escape payment for the commons, and to survive and profit by privatizing commons, they have allied with the state against the people in every society and been outcast or decimated for it. But that is the same strategy our women have always practiced since their invention of gossip, and the strategy our women have adopted since their enfranchisement in politics: alliance with the state in order to extract parasitically. Hence the treatment of jews and women by every society in history: as a useful danger to be carefully managed.
The problem that the transcendence of mankind faces is not the races but the classes and the genders. The bottom is more harmful than the top is beneficial. And because people act as racial kinship groups in all areas of life, we try to solve the wrong problem that generates the conflict: parasitism. We solve by war, religion (deceit), and propaganda (lies), that which we failed to solve by truth: the natural common, judge discovered law, of voluntary transfer prohibiting parasitism. We force them into productive voluntary exchanges in order to survive. We force them into productive work in order to survive. We force them into careful mate selection. And we force them back to the status of undomesticated animals if they do not, and sterilize them.
We don’t need to conduct wars of extermination, to put people in ovens, or hang them from ropes, or spit them on pikes – unless they rally in numbers. We need only limit their breeding to one child, and pay them to have no children. And to extend the legal prohibition on false and immoral speech products – protect information just as we protect land, air, water, commons, and institutions from harm.
We need to return to our long, successful, and widely profitable history of domesticating the universe, nature, plant, animal, and those animals sufficiently sentient that we have the potential to cooperate with via productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to productive externalities: at present, that is limited to homo sapiens-sapiens and his sub-species we call the ‘races’, and ‘sub-races’.
Because Western Aristocracy is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a government – it is a technology and an INDUSTRY. And it is by use of this industry we have profited by dragging the beast man out of his parasitic past on the margins of nature into the transcendent mastery of himself, and nature.
Man is an animal. Human is a domesticated man. Aristocracy is a transcendent human: “one who domesticates the beast man”.
You can dis on Muslims in particular, and all religious fundamentalists in general, and all pseudo-academics, and all pseudo-intellectuals, and all pseudoscientists, and all frauds of any kind that spread error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit. Because there is no place for fraud in the marketplace of information and ideas any more than there is for fraud in the marketplace of goods and services. All these people merely profit from undomesticating the animal man.
Because it is only the burden of the underclasses that cannot verbalize abstract ideas, and learn by self-instruction that prevents us from the universal human future we all desire.
And it is those who profit from the un-domestication of the animals, more so than the animals themselves that are our, and mankind’s enemy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 1.1-Introduction (problem), 1.2-Uniqueness, Aphorisms, Moritz Bierling
—“The Western peoples transferred, or rather limited, the universal drive to find and exploit high yield, low investment, low maintenance sources of energy from other people (“parasitism”) to immediately and personally moveable resources including your own body and everything it produces (“industry”). Turns out that’s the only scalable solution.”—Moritz Bierling
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion, Uncategorized
Nov 17, 2016 5:58pm
Assuming you teach Christianity as myth rather than history, by and large it’s compatible with natural law. But not Judaism. And not Islam.
QUESTION…
—“I’d enjoy it if you’d elaborate on that.”—Rex May
Well, if by Christianity we are talking about the content of the bible, and in particular of the new testament, then this is different than the doctrines of the church.
1) The ten commandments enumerate what we call natural law, or property rights, prohibiting envy,deceit,interference in others contract, theft, and murder – thereby preserving the value of cooperation.
The nuclear family is the basic unit of social production, and the costs of it must be born by all of us in every generation for the good of all.
Invest heavily in the creation of opportunity and insurance of others even in the face of offense and rejection by treating non-kin with the tolerance and care of kin, in order to increase the number of those with whom we can cooperate with us, just as we cooperate with kin.
Impulsivity, Selfishness, Arrogance and Hubris await us at every moment and it is only through constant practice at patience that we learn enough about the world to avoid impulsivity, selfishness, arrogance, and hubris.
The state – the aristocracy and our enemies – cannot be resisted by the force of the weak, but the weak can insure one another independently of the state – we are weak, but if we are many, and we treat one another as kin, we will be equally as strong in resisting the state. If we are not dependent on the state, but dependent upon one another, we create the power of a state without a state.
Regular prayer for advice to an all knowing ‘father’ will teach you to be as honest with yourself, and once honest with yourself honest with others.
Reserve regular time to contemplate this law together, and seek to apply and improve it in daily life.
There is no law higher than this. And any that says or does otherwise is not only to be mistrusted, but shunned, and if necessary, punished.
2) most of the Babylonian myths are stated in slave language, but still informative. Read in parallel to the greek myths they’re the lower class version for the weak, just as the greek myths for the strong.
3) the lives of the saints tell us about how to extend that kinship love.
4) most of the catholic encyclopedia provides an exceptional history of Europe.
5) the church dogma is reducible to “we will ostracize you if you don’t believe this nonsense as your price of insurance by the insurer of last resort: the church”. The rest is all drivel.
6) the content of a religion varies, but the method of constructing a religion through the evocation of the elation we feel from the pack response in every walk of life remains constant. All members of all religions think that it is the content that provides the elation and spirituality but it is merely the pack response produced by the rituals.
We can judge the content of the message separately. Christianity’s content tends to be compatible with natural (cooperative) law.
QUESTION…
—“Very informative. Could you add something about how Judaism and Islam don’t have the same effect? I’d like to make a blog post out of this.—Rex May
FIRST THINGS FIRST
It is not obvious, even to those who have followed me for a while, that using propertarian analysis is quite simple if you simple look for changes in the composition of capital by voluntary or involuntary, fully informed or not fully informed, truthful or untruthful, warrantied or not warrantied, transfers. So my criticisms aren’t arbitrary.
CHRISTIANITY
Christianity consists mostly of church manufactured dogma for the purpose of persisting authoritarian rule, by preserving the ignorance of the population, but suggesting, directing, and commanding them to act in accordance with natural law with one another, using readings from the text. This is, from what I understand, why prosperity increases with the distribution of Christianity: trust extension through constant repetition and virtue signaling.
BUT WHAT DO WE MEAN BY CHRISTIANITY?
However, we are often the victims of the fact that the church held a near monopoly on literacy, and just as Bede manufactured a history of England, the church manufactured a history of its own over-importance. The reason being that the church/state divide was always present – a division of houses of government. So the church’s message of submission must be retained in context of the nobility’s caprice, aggression, and violence – a constant battle between two extremes.
Once literacy arrives via the printing press, and the bible is available in the vulgate, and other books are available as competitors to the dogma, Christianity does not consist of the church falsehoods and authoritarianism, but the expansion of Christian virtues. (The so called “germanicization of Christianity”.) These virtues combine with the rise of the Hansa civilization’s gradual middle class expansion, and the expansion of the population after the decline of the plagues. The power of the church declines. And the number of educated preachers increases (my family members among them in England). We see the professionalization of the craft of teaching rather than the expansion of the church bureaucracy.
When I refer to christianity, I am referring to the german professional era rather than latin bureaucratic era. The latin era which I consider lingering only in third world countries. And moreover, that the decline of the church has largely to do with the failure to complete the transition of the role of the priesthood to professional teachers that not only retain myth and ritual, but that teach what the common people need to be taught in order to oppose the (evil) religion of the totalitarian state: fitness, virtues, friendship, marriage, parenting, household management, money, accounting, economics, natural law, history, and the conduct of WAR. And to provide banking services that have been monopolized by the state against the interest of the people. This is the reason for the failure of the church to preserve intergenerational relevance, while the state simply “manufactures skilled labor for the tax-mines”.
JUDAISM
Judaism is poly-moral. In other words, there are different moral standards for in-group and out-group members. The general strategy is to contribute nothing to the commons, nothing to the host, but to extract and hold within the clan (tribe) every calorie possible. It is perfectly acceptable to create negative externalities, to ‘cheat’, and it is part of the law that permits them to – and encourages them to.
So where Christianity tries to increase their numbers by low-cost purchase of options to build trust, Judaism tries to accumulate capital by parasitic exploitation of the commons and host.
ISLAMISM
islamism is immoral. it seeks and spreads obedience and ignorance. it asks not for christian productivity and trust expansion to all, and instead of jewish parasitism, seeks expansionary conquest and predation – the expansion of mandatory ignorance. And it does so by fascinating means: the promise of respect for submission (non-contribution) rather than contribution. Islam spreads the curse of ignorance stagnation illiteracy and impulsivity and weaponizes reproduction. it is not a primitive religion. This is the mistake we make. it is a very sophisticated means of spreading ignorance via the expansion of a lower class that is antagonistic to any competitor that falsifies its false promise by higher correspondence with reality.
So:
Once we have literacy and have escaped the church’s imposition of ignorance and submission against the population, we are left with the current state of these three Abrahamic religions:
1 – (Reformed) Christian expansion of trust and production.
2 – Jewish expansion of deceit and parasitism
3 – Islamic expansion of ignorance and predation.
If that is not a damnation of all that exists in all three then I don’t know what is. But we have largely reformed Christianity. And the only step remaining is to redirect our churches to their role as professional teachers of intertemporal knowledge that is a competitor to the predatory education of the state.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.8-Evolution, Sequences, Uncategorized
Nov 18, 2016 6:37am
1) Aryan Expansion of sovereignty, domestication, and invention.(E)
2) (Reformed) Christian expansion of duty, trust, and production.(E)
3) Jewish expansion of separatism, deceit, and parasitism.(E/D)
4) Marxist expansion of rebellion, pseudoscience, and parasitism.(D)
5) Islamic expansion of submission, ignorance, and predation. (D)
(E: eugenic/domestication. D:dysgenic/un-domestication. E/D: internal eugenic and external dysgenic)
26 Saturday Nov 2016
YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPREAD IGNORANCE
( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )
Why do you have the right to ignorance?
Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.
And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.
And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.
So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.
And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.
So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.
And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.
But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:
DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
1st with ridicule & shame
(Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)
DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO COOPERATE:
2nd with ostracism
(I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)
DEPRIVATION OF GOODS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION
3rd loss of privilege
(I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)
DEPRIVATION OF CHOICE
4th loss of liberty
(You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)
DEPRIVATION OF ACTION
5th loss of freedom!
(Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state 
😉)
DEPRIVATION OF EXISTENCE
6th loss of life
(hanging)
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 6.3-Methodology, Aphorisms
Some arguments ask if statements are ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’.
Some arguments ask if statements are ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Some arguments ask if statements are true or false.
Some arguments ask if statements are gains or losses.
Some arguments ask if statements are exchanges or transfers
Some arguments ask if statements are investments or frauds
Some arguments ask if statements are any of the above.
26 Saturday Nov 2016
We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
