HIGHBROW, MAYBE. BUT ACTIONABLE IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON MAN Yes. I realize

HIGHBROW, MAYBE. BUT ACTIONABLE IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON MAN

Yes. I realize that I am, my work is, and our followers are, somewhat highbrow – at least by the judgement of others. But we do not seek to separate ourselves from the soldiers, the workmen, the craftsmen, the modern guild-masters, and the white-collar-toilers of experiment, calculation and planning. Instead, we SERVE THEM in their war of survival against the globalist merchants of empty-words that constitute the membership of the Cathedral Complex: the marketers, advertisers, media, the public intellectuals, the state, and the academy that trains them in the art of empty words.

But what we grasp as impending change in our favor, and what the Cathedral Complex fails to grasp as impending loss, is that they rode to their position on the migration of farmers lacking the ability to obtain common consumer goods, as they transitioned into the ability produce and consume more than agrarian life’s subsistence goods.

But that their gospel of consumption, gospel of unaccountability, gospel of hedonism, gospel of perpetual prosperity, has come to end. Because, as all of us climb the pyramid of wants, our preference for higher valued goods: kin, tribe, nation, culture, and civilization, are of greater preference than further consumption of consumer goods. And that the only people who have a vested interest in profiting from further consumption are those in the Cathedral Complex, who now, instead of advancing our interests as consumers, work against our interests as family, kin, tribe, nation, culture, and civilization.

And that the exceptional windfall of western civilization’s inventions that grasped the low hanging fruit of scientific discovery, has been consumed. And that the great leveling has begun. A leveling not in the form of equality of increasing material prosperity. But the leveling in the absence of continuing gains in cultural prosperity: the decreasing costs of conflict and our joy in producing our highest good: the high trust, moral, ethical, homogenous, redistributive, economically prosperous small nations that are but an extension of the family we all seek security within.

The Cathedral complex evolved as an empire starting with the british empire, and ending with the american empire. The academy – just as the church before it – has evolved a new pseudoscientific and immoral religion of lies, by selling diplomas immaterially different from the Indulgences of the medieval era: this time promising a utopia of middle or upper middle class level of consumption, rather than a utopia after death. The church benefitting from the untestability of its promises of utopia. The Academy benefitting from the unaccountability of the product it sells.

We live in a world of false advertising. We live in a world of lies. We permit the lies because lying is profitable for state, academy, public intellectuals, advertisers, marketers, of goods, services AND information.

Western civilization differed from all others for the simple reason that in our prehistoric past we invented sovereignty: rule of peers. Rule of reciprocity between insurers of sovereignty. Rule without rulers. Rule of law. Rule of law to which any man demonstrating his willingness and ability to actively insure others, could gain status of freeman. Or “domesticated man”. Perhaps betters said, who could transcend from animal man to human man. And we invented this peerage for the simple reason that warriors are dependent upon truth telling for survival in maneuver warfare. This truthful speech is evident in our indo european languages, but more so in germanic languages than the rest. german is perhaps the best language of the natural world, whether physical or human.

English has evolved into a scientific and legal language with a degree of precision unmatched in the world in those subjects. Romans took from the stoics their empirical pragmatism and natural law, as a way of avoiding the nonsense arguments of plato and socrates that plagued Roman law they way Jewish lawyers plague english law today. the Stoics, Aristotle, Epicurus, Plato, and Socrates evolved philosophy in part to attempt to restore political discourse which had evolved into moralizing (the same moralizing that we see today, that has crippled the British today, and that caused Chinese civilization to stagnate when it abandoned the practical and empirical for the utopian and moral.) But they were trying to restore what was innate to their civilization, and the ancestors that they could no longer remember except for the stories of Homer: the equivalent of their ‘bible’.

We can restore the West very simply. To do so we need a means by which to test speech for due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion-subtraction-loading-and-framing, obscurantism-and-overloading, supernaturalism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

We have that method now. We can codify in law the requirement for strict construction from the rule of sovereignty; the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities. We can require law be strictly constructed from this one law of voluntary cooperation. The only possible equality that can exist between humans – or any other sentient machines or creatures, yet to come. We can require that any legislation state its intent, and therefore limit its scope. We can require judges strictly interpret the legislation according to original intent. And therefore restore to the government the requirement for improving legislation if found unsuitable. Yet retain juridical discovery of Law (not legislation), in matters of conflict where someone has invented a new means of violating the One Law of Natural Law. This retains judicial discretion in matters of natural law, but eliminates it in matters of legislative

We can extend the involuntary warranty required of those who distributed products and services in the market for private consumption and public goods, to cover an involuntary warranty INFORMATION as well. But to do so the judges need a set of criteria for judging whether an accused has performed sufficient due diligence or not.

And as in many aspects of the law, mastering the methods by which we test due diligence in court, and individuals who manufacture and distribute and sell goods, services, and information, requires expertise and the gradual development of a body of judge-discovered case law that can take a decade to develop. And yes, products are easier to perform due diligence upon than are services, and services are easier to perform due diligence upon then is information. But likewise the damage that can be done by a product, by a service, and by information increases dramatically. For example, the most damaging products are medicines, the most damaging services medical, financial, and the most damaging information supernatural, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, political, economic and military propaganda. The scale of the difficulty in warrantying goods, services, and information, scales with the damage that can be done by the product, service, or information.

And its true that people will not want to warranty their information (speech): particularly marketers, advertisers, public intellectuals, professional forecasters, purveyors of financial services, economists, professors and the academy, politicians and the bureaucracy of the state. Because if they can no longer lie, they can only facilitate compromise trades between factions with opposing wants, rather than make false claims about what is ‘good’, to justify the use of force with which to circumvent compromise trades between factions with opposing wants.

But every sector has resisted involuntary warranty as an imposed cost upon their production and sale of goods, services and information. Yet it has been through the incremental suppression of deceits and the incremental improvement of common law, that we have slowly improved (moreso in europe’s consumer protections than here in lie-producing america) the predictability of and therefore velocity of all trade.

But now our lives are more dependent upon non information than ever before. In fact, information is the primary consumption we make use of, and pay for, whether for entertainment, fulfillment, or professional gain. In retrospect it’s understandable that given the industrialization of deception made possible by monopoly control of mass media, and the conspiracy of common intersets between the finance, advertising and marketing, academy, and state members of the “Cathedral Complex”. So it’s only logical that after being the victims of deceits for a century we would reach the point where they were no longer beneficial myths to encourage consumption, but are now hazardous deceits by which we are prevented from achieving our wants now that ordinary civic priorities so common in history have been restored to their prior state given our collective economic ascent After all, its increasingly difficult to find a consumable good or service that is anything other than a status signal. We surpassed the need for basic comforts decades ago. We just run upon a hamster wheel attempting to defeat one another’s virtue signals. We are not materially improving our lives. We are sacrificing the accumulated capital in our families, tribes, nations, culture, and civilization for nothing more than conspicuous consumption and virtue signaling. We would rather rebuild our families, tribes, nations, culture, and civilization than attempt to acquire more meaningless goods in a competition for signals that we already understand, as individuals we cannot win. And instead as a collective we wish to produce commons with which we can win. Why? Because only westerners have succeeded in producing voluntary commons. The commons is the means by which we conquered the world. Why? Trust. Truth. Property. Reciprocal insurance. Sovereignty. And what are the most expensive commons that we have produced?

High trust. Deflationary Truth, the judiciary, the jury the senate, Government without Rulers under sovereignty, property, and the common judge-discovered, natural law. Reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now Testimonialism. the High Arts, architecture engineering, sciences. And the folly of taking it all for granted.

But what are those tests of due diligence that can be embodied in the law – even if the practitioners of the law must learn new skills on top of those of contract and logic – those more commonly the providence of scientists. Because these tests of due diligence we refer to as Testimonialism complete the loosely termed ‘scientific method’. Science has evolved into the universal language of truth speaking. but for reasons that are not well understood. Science consists of four disciplines: 1) accumulating existing knowledge of a subject, 2) imagining by free association possible methods of inquiry, 3) determining methods of observation – what we call ‘measurement’, and 4) performing due diligence that our means of observation, and our means of describing those observations, is as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion-loading-and-framing, obscurantism-and-overloading, superstition, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

But for a variety of complex reasons – the academic incentive to professionalize philosophy and the false promise of analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of language chief among them – and the failure of the great thinkers in every field – of philosophy, law, economics, physics, and mathematics to recognize the similarities in their shared problems of methodology – the thinkers of the late 19th and entire 20th centuries were unable to complete the scientific method by extending it from the physical sciences consisting of constant relations to the social sciences consisting of consistently reciprocal relations, and into economics that consists of inconstant relations. (Which admittedly is a short sentence saying a great number of complex things.)

However just as mathematics has evolved to allow us to address each dimension of possible reality : identity, quantity, set operations, ratios, the geometry of spacial differences, and the calculus of relative motion, it is also possible to evolve the law to address each dimension of actionable reality. And just as we look for possibility in mathematics – that thing we call a proof of internal consistency – and we can then use that proof of internal consistency to test against external consistency, we can seek a series of consistencies and proofs of possibility in speech. Those tests of consistency in all dimensions of possible action from concept to movement are:

1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency.

2 – Logic: Internal Consistency

3 – Correspondence: Empirical Consistency

4 – Reciprocity: Moral Consistency

5 – Existential Possibility: Existential Consistency (Operational Language) (See “Writing in E-Prime)

6 – Full Accounting: Scope Consistency: Have we accounted for all inputs and causes, and outputs and consequences? Have we defined the limits at which the statement fails? And have we insured that we speak parsimoniously leaving out room for interpretation.

To the average person these dimensions of reality we can test with very structured words, and the dimensions of reality we can test with mathematics may seem either obscure, unintelligible, or difficult. But many aspects of many disciplines – particularly those that require precise articulation – a form of ‘calculation’: logic, math, physics, programming, contract, can be difficult to learn. We are taught to read, we are taught, mathematics, accounting, and even the operations of biology and chemistry. Learning to speak truthfully and clearly is no harder than learning to write a contract, and certainly easier than learning to program. And unfortunately, for what may have been politically malicious reasons, we no longer teach how to speak truthfully: grammar, logic, and rhetoric were ordinary subjects in prior eras. We can restore and improve upon the past with grammar, logic, testimony, and rhetoric. Learning to speak in a manner in which it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit is not that difficult. It leads to far less public speech. Because the vast majority if not all public speech appears in retrospect to be largely error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit.

Is this really implementable? Of course it is. Courts have in the past been very successful at defamation, are currently exceptional at commercial fraud for products and services, and they have been actively prevented from adjudicated falsehoods in advertising, marketing, and political speech. Our ancestors never conceived of mass media – where lying could be conducted on an industrial scale and profited from so readily by finance, business, public intellectuals, the academy, and the state. In fact, given that the origin of reason, rationalism, empiricism, science, and now Testimonialism, was the debate between sovereign men before the thang, jury, and senate, it’s hard to imagine that the courts would not have solved the problem of the industrialization of lying if it were not prohibited in doing so by the state – the entire Cathedral Complex and it’s special interests which profit from the industrialization of lying. On a scale we have not seen since Justinian opened a school of theology, enforced religion, and forcibly closed the philosophical and particularly the stoic schools – the intergenerational equivalent of burning all books that existed in that era in order to replace them with one – his ‘law’ the bible.

To amend the american constitution, by revoking it’s amendments that violate natural law and the sovereignty of men and the states; by restating its provisions in language derived from the one law of natural law, and by placing strict requirements on how legislation and regulation can be imagined and written, and how judge discovered Common Law can be identified and written, we can create what is called a grammar that is as rigorous as software programming and nearly as rigorous as mathematics.

By restoring the penalties for defamation, propaganda and deception we can restore civic discourse, and restore the west to its empirical tradition – which is what ‘conservatism’ means: empirical evidence prior to legislative experiment. And once sovereignty and law are restored, we can return to the construction of commons – which is the purpose of government – using truthful information, and voluntary exchanges between classes with uncommon interests, by allowing us to cooperate on means despite our differing desired ends.

Will this cause some difficulty? Will there be resistance? Of course there will. But what was the consequence of the scientific revolution – even though that revolution was limited to the physical sciences? It dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition poverty, starvation and disease. And yes, it ended the superstition of the church-state complex.

And this next revolution in thought will produce at least as great a flowering in social science as the empirical revolution produced in the physical sciences. When man is limited to truthful knowledge no matter how undesirable, he does not pursue false solutions no matter how he imagines that they are desirable.

We have endured a century of lying using pseudo-history, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and that form of outright lying we call ‘political correctness’. And it has reached a point where we have transformed the false superstitious religion of the church-state complex, into a false pseudoscientific religion of the finance-academy-state complex. And we have just seen the transformation of the academy of competing knowledge into a religion of conformity to falsehood, and released a generation of children into the world who are indistinguishable from religious fundamentalists. The only difference is the rely on pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, deceits rather than superstitious myths. They are a generation of fools led by a generation of liars, funded by a generation of underclass power-seekers and the first generation of a new false religion carefully crafted 150 years ago by the same group of people that created the first generation of false religion 2000 years ago. There are many methods of competing in this world and the institutionalization of lying is but one. We are the people who invented truth and it is our greatest commons and our greatest defense against the ‘peoples who lie’ from the east.

So is this possible? We did not deem a lot of things possible in the past. We are not asking people to believe for value something. We are simply proposing a modification of law to warranty due diligence for information the same way that we have required due diligence for products and services.

Every major revolution in the anglo world has been a matter of revising the current contract for governance to suppress new means of parasitism in the state. This is the secret to the longevity of the anglo civilization. We have maintained the common Germanic law of sovereignty that we imported with the anglo saxons. Our political priesthood is the sacred judiciary. And to preserve that central ability of our people to preserve our civilization we must rescue our our priesthood – the judiciary – from the lies that they have been forced to tolerate.

We can compensate for our error in the destruction of Germany and restore the west in its entirety by completing the search for the the language of truth: that thing we call mistakenly – “science”

And having done so there will no longer be a discernible difference between the disciplines of science, philosophy, morality, and law. And that one result alone will end most of the means of deception that man uses regularly to engage in fraud and coercion, rather than the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externality, of that which we have borne costs to obtain. Because it is that transparent, productive, warrantied, reciprocity that all evolutionary necessity, cooperative necessity, moral instinct, moral norm, and moral law consist in.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine