RELIGION AND REVOLUTION (very important post) Religion functions as a regulatory

RELIGION AND REVOLUTION

(very important post)

Religion functions as a regulatory institution limiting culture. It is one thing to allow religious ‘ghettos’ for political utility, another to tolerate those ghettos for commercial utility, and it’s quite another to create a poly-logical cultural (normative) equivalent to the mono-logical legal system. In other words, it is no more logical(honest) to produce a poly logical legal order, than it is a poly logical ethical order, than it is to produce a poly logical aesthetic order. These are not matters of preference but of truth. And matters of truth are not positive assertions but negative prohibitions. By the possibility of prohibiting that which violates physical, natural, and informational laws, we create a market for goods, but we prohibit a market for bads.

So the separation of church and state is incorrect. That separation is necessary not so that we may permit competing religions – not so whatsoever – but (a) to prevent the conflation of religion with law, and (b) to allow the evolution of religions increasingly compatible with informational, natural, and physical laws.

The military, organized crimes(federal police), local crimes (local police), and sheriffs (community police) must be independent because they do not choose, they only ACT. The judiciary must be independent to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption as an organization that decides (chooses) not acts. The church (and I use that term very loosely to describe all forms of aesthetics) must be independent for the same reasons as the judiciary and the military – to prevent its conflation, misuse or corruption. These are regulatory bodies for (1) military:force, (2) judiciary:exchange, and (3) aesthetics:good commons.

The academy must be independent for the same reasons as the military, judiciary, and church: to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption. However this limits the academy to the sciences (the true) and preserves ‘the good’ as work for the church. Ergo, the aesthetic (allegorical) disciplines then are the providence of the regulation of the church, not the research and training of the academy. The Academy may produce good as a byproduct of truth, but the church must limit the good.

Our Laws of Nature: Physical Laws, Cooperative Laws(Natural Law), and Informational Laws (Testimonial Law) must then limit all of these disciplines.

Our germanic ancestors unfortunately did not grasp the genius of the ethics of the germanic oath (responsibility for truth, life, property, and commons), and the utility of common over continental law which enforced this oath not only upon the citizens but on the very institutions of government and religion themselves. The germans feared anglo truth. The anglos were seduced by the commercial gains of cosmopolitan empire – as are all empires that fail.

The national socialists did not understand what they had discovered: a post-mystical religion – one that we all desire, and (unfortunately) one that we need. They too practiced conflation. They had one piece of the institutional puzzle but not enough of it to prevent ‘bads’.

We can create a new ‘church’ and make use of our established monuments. That church must fulfill its duty as a limiter of aesthetics, just as the military(force), and judiciary(cooperation), create limits.

But we must not make the mistake that other civilizations have made when their primary institutions fail: conflation. The answer we seek to restore western civilization is found in the choice of: Sovereignty, and the consequential choice of Transcendence and the consequential necessity of Markets in Everything. And in the means of decidability under them: The Laws: Physical, Cooperative(Natural), and informational (testimonial). And in the specialized institutions that limit the three means of coercion: Military, Judiciary, Church. And the one institution that provides innovation: Science, Academy, School, and Gymnasium.

The human mind seeks simple models. We call them under various terms: stereotypes, ideal types, and ideals. It’s the most simple form of comparison. We want one rule,and one institution. But this ‘want’ leads us into conflation, and conflation leads us into misuse, corruption, stagnation, and failure.

In retrospect our ancestors practiced soveregnty and tripartism (estates of the realm), intuitively and habitually, rather than scientifically (operationally and analytically). When the economic shift provided by the end of the plagues, the evolution of the hanseatic civilization as a competitor to the mediterranean, and the scientific enlightenment, unfortunately the middle class seized power by overestimating the potential of the commercial order and the power of markets.

The accumulated cultural capital did take a long time to spend down. But spend it down we have. And by spending it down we can claim one benefit: by analyzing our loss, we can understand our error. And having understood our error, we can repair it.

Deconflate the conflations of the enlightenment. End the attempt to construct an institutional monopoly – the antithesis of our historical reasons for success. Restore markets in everything. Restore markets in everything by restoring a judiciary under natural law, and adding informational law to the responsibility of that judiciary. Restore the church by restoring its responsibilities, and chartering it with a new natural rather than supernatural mission. Restore the military to its pervasive position in society as the central method of emergency services of all kinds.

How can this be done?

– Moral Permission (we have it)

– A set of demands (a more precise version of that which is stated above)

– A plan of transition (a demand for a new constitution, the reformation of our institutions, and the purge of certain institutions).

– A plan of ‘persuasion’ ( Promise violence against the status quo, then incrementally increase it, until those demands are either met- or we descend into civil war, and we impose them ourselves.)

Why is it possible?

– because no civilization in history other than perhaps the Late Roman or Late Ottoman has been as fragile as ours is today.

Opportunity knocks.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine