Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • (The best explanation you will find anywhere) The first generations of feminism

    (The best explanation you will find anywhere)

    The first generations of feminism from (a) women’s rights to (b) women’s suffrage movement converted into (c) first wave feminism, again primarily legal rights – especially in marriage – and voting rights.

    Until this point it’s fully christian and a just adaptation to women’s capacity outside the home after the industrial revolution, the availability of education, and sufficient suppression of scarcity because of the industrial revolution that people had the freedom to even imagine any form of self sufficiency outside of a family structure.

    But, beginning with (d) Second Wave Jewish feminism, by Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir. starting in the 1960s went beyond rights to privileges obtained by political means – sedition against the institution of the family and wester civ. In other words, the conversion of marxist means of sedition by the working classes to marxist sedition by women.

    Then (e) Third Wave Feminism of Rebecca Walker, Judith Butler, bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watson), continued the marxist means of sedition adopted into feminism by Jewish feminists, and expanded it from sex marxism (women’s rent seeking) into continues sedition by claiming the sexes and gender roles are irrelevant and instead of a our historical informal and formal institutions creating a compromise between the sexes, claiming it was oppressive.

    When, as unpleasant as it sounds, the opposite was true, paternalism was a male responsibility to the rest of the polity for “domesticating a naturally anti-social, anti-political, anti-economic sex into equal responsibility for self, private and common, by prohibiting externalizing costs upon others.”

    Which was a set of outcomes that were predicted, because of women’s natural inability to restrict impulses for hyperconsumption, hypergamy, hyper-attention, hyper-manipulation, and the use of anti-social warfare to obtain what they could not by merit alone – and all of which now come to fruition as the destruction of intersexual cooperation, mating, reproduction, family, and family as the first institution of production of citizens capable of persisting our high trust civilization, and the resulting possibility of a participatory (democratic) polity in the absence of arbitrary authority.

    Why? women always vote to evade responsibility rather than to demand it’s adoption and demonstration. “Get men to pay for it.”

    So what is the female strategy, what is the marxist strategy, what is the feminist marxist strategy, and what is the woke race-marxist strategy?

    It’s a revolt against the demand for responsibility for self, private and common, necessary to produce a western civilizational polity capable of the suppression of authority by mutual insurance of self determination by self determined means, by insurance of sovereignty in one’s demonstrated investments and autonomy in their use of self and those investments without imposing on those of others.

    In other words its the reversal of the process of human domestication that made advanced civilization possible by the claim domestication of the animal impulse is oppression rather than training necessary for political participation that was made possible only because of those demands for responsibility.

    Then (f) fourth wave feminism by instinct rather than instruction, Digital activism and the use of social media to use gossiping rallying shaming undermining and canceling to circumvent the court and common law process. This is effectively the institutionalization of the female method of not only social and political warfare, but of the female method of government.

    (Though that statement might take more explanation that I’m able to go into at the moment – I hope most of you will grasp it as a contrast of the male use of adversarial combat in court with the female use of warfare by rallying in public without the constraints of the court to testifiability, equity, and liability)

    SUMMARY

    a,b) Pre-Feminism: Women’s Suffrage and Women’s Rights Movements focused on legal rights, suffrage, and basic equality. Economic rights outside the home.

    c) First-Wave Feminism: Legal and institutional equality, especially suffrage. Irresponsibility for marriage.

    d) Second-Wave Feminism: Broader social equality, workplace, reproductive rights. Privileges over men. Irresponsibility for self regulation, especially of reproduction.

    e) Third-Wave Feminism: Diversity, intersectionality, individualism. Privilege over white men, and extension of irresponsibility to others in order to obtain more privileges over men.

    f) Fourth-Wave Feminism: Digital activism, combating sexual harassment, and utilizing social media for mobilization. Use of new technology to scale undermining to canceling, which is specifically a violation of our ancestral common law, that one is limited to court when one’s actions impose a material consequence upon others.

    ANALYSIS

    Why is it that none of these explanations of the feminist movement after equal legal rights and equal voting rights, are not seen through the lens of the female means of social warfare to obtain by seduction, victim claiming, undermining, and sedition, to justify female limited ability and will for self regulation of impulses and emotions, in order for her to evade responsibility for capitalization of private behavior and the necessary public norms to produce responsibility for that capitalization, to justify her instincts for hyper-consumption, hyper-attention, hypergamy, and to hide under cover of victimization, in favor of and the antisocial, anti-economic, and anti-political consequences that are the foundation the marxist means of sedition, then applied to anti-male, anti-responsibility, anti-western civilization, for exactly the same reasons.

    With the result that all informal capital (knowledge, tradition, and behavior) and formal capital (institutions, including the work force, business and industry, education and the academy, and all political organization) are collapsing for the simple reason that women have claimed oppression instead of domestication, and the consequence of men’s failure to domesticate women, and women domesticate themselves across generations, has resulted in what is very close to civil war and civilizational collapse, including civilizational collapse by birth rates.

    WHAT TO DO?

    Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in white collar roles.

    So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.

    So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.

    SOLUTION

    I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)

    And from that perspective, the problem is fixable. It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. 😉

    Affections,
    As always,
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:52:32 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1795573900497047552

  • WHERE FEMINISM WENT WRONG – FROM RIGHTS TO SEDITION – AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (T

    WHERE FEMINISM WENT WRONG – FROM RIGHTS TO SEDITION – AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
    (The best understanding you will find anywhere)

    A LITTLE HISTORY
    The first generations of feminism from (a) women’s rights to (b) women’s suffrage movement converted into (c) first wave feminism, again primarily legal rights – especially in marriage – and voting rights.

    Until this point it’s fully christian and a just adaptation to women’s capacity outside the home after the industrial revolution, the availability of education, and sufficient suppression of scarcity because of the industrial revolution that people had the freedom to even imagine any form of self sufficiency outside of a family structure.

    But, beginning with (d) Second Wave Jewish feminism, by Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir. starting in the 1960s went beyond rights to privileges obtained by political means – sedition against the institution of the family and wester civ. In other words, the conversion of marxist means of sedition by the working classes to marxist sedition by women.

    Then (e) Third Wave Feminism of Rebecca Walker, Judith Butler, bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watson), continued the marxist means of sedition adopted into feminism by Jewish feminists, and expanded it from sex marxism (women’s rent seeking) into continues sedition by claiming the sexes and gender roles are irrelevant and instead of a our historical informal and formal institutions creating a compromise between the sexes, claiming it was oppressive.

    When, as unpleasant as it sounds, the opposite was true, paternalism was a male responsibility to the rest of the polity for “domesticating a naturally anti-social, anti-political, anti-economic sex into equal responsibility for self, private and common, by prohibiting externalizing costs upon others.”

    Which was a set of outcomes that were predicted, because of women’s natural inability to restrict impulses for hyperconsumption, hypergamy, hyper-attention, hyper-manipulation, and the use of anti-social warfare to obtain what they could not by merit alone – and all of which now come to fruition as the destruction of intersexual cooperation, mating, reproduction, family, and family as the first institution of production of citizens capable of persisting our high trust civilization, and the resulting possibility of a participatory (democratic) polity in the absence of arbitrary authority.

    Why? women always vote to evade responsibility rather than to demand it’s adoption and demonstration. “Get men to pay for it.”

    So what is the female strategy, what is the marxist strategy, what is the feminist marxist strategy, and what is the woke race-marxist strategy?

    It’s a revolt against the demand for responsibility for self, private and common, necessary to produce a western civilizational polity capable of the suppression of authority by mutual insurance of self determination by self determined means, by insurance of sovereignty in one’s demonstrated investments and autonomy in their use of self and those investments without imposing on those of others.

    In other words its the reversal of the process of human domestication that made advanced civilization possible by the claim domestication of the animal impulse is oppression rather than training necessary for political participation that was made possible only because of those demands for responsibility.

    Then (f) fourth wave feminism by instinct rather than instruction, Digital activism and the use of social media to use gossiping rallying shaming undermining and canceling to circumvent the court and common law process. This is effectively the institutionalization of the female method of not only social and political warfare, but of the female method of government.

    (Though that statement might take more explanation that I’m able to go into at the moment – I hope most of you will grasp it as a contrast of the male use of adversarial combat in court with the female use of warfare by rallying in public without the constraints of the court to testifiability, equity, and liability)

    SUMMARY
    a,b) Pre-Feminism: Women’s Suffrage and Women’s Rights Movements focused on legal rights, suffrage, and basic equality. Economic rights outside the home.
    c) First-Wave Feminism: Legal and institutional equality, especially suffrage. Irresponsibility for marriage.
    d) Second-Wave Feminism: Broader social equality, workplace, reproductive rights. Privileges over men. Irresponsibility for self regulation, especially of reproduction.
    e) Third-Wave Feminism: Diversity, intersectionality, individualism. Privilege over white men, and extension of irresponsibility to others in order to obtain more privileges over men.
    f) Fourth-Wave Feminism: Digital activism, combating sexual harassment, and utilizing social media for mobilization. Use of new technology to scale undermining to canceling, which is specifically a violation of our ancestral common law, that one is limited to court when one’s actions impose a material consequence upon others.

    ANALYSIS
    Why is it that none of these explanations of the feminist movement after equal legal rights and equal voting rights, are not seen through the lens of the female means of social warfare to obtain by seduction, victim claiming, undermining, and sedition, to justify female limited ability and will for self regulation of impulses and emotions, in order for her to evade responsibility for capitalization of private behavior and the necessary public norms to produce responsibility for that capitalization, to justify her instincts for hyper-consumption, hyper-attention, hypergamy, and to hide under cover of victimization, in favor of and the antisocial, anti-economic, and anti-political consequences that are the foundation the marxist means of sedition, then applied to anti-male, anti-responsibility, anti-western civilization, for exactly the same reasons.

    With the result that all informal capital (knowledge, tradition, and behavior) and formal capital (institutions, including the work force, business and industry, education and the academy, and all political organization) are collapsing for the simple reason that women have claimed oppression instead of domestication, and the consequence of men’s failure to domesticate women, and women domesticate themselves across generations, has resulted in what is very close to civil war and civilizational collapse, including civilizational collapse by birth rates.

    WHAT TO DO?
    Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in white collar roles.

    So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.

    So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.

    SOLUTION
    I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)

    And from that perspective, the problem is fixable. It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. 😉

    Affections,
    As always.
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:52:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795573815038111744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795501665388224775

  • The Course and Conduct of The Coming Revolution [T]he legislature and the courts

    The Course and Conduct of The Coming Revolution

    [T]he legislature and the courts have determined:
    (a) that the social, economic, and political capital costs, are inferior to the social, economic, and political gains of, enforcing:
    (b) that the right of free speech, and in particular, political speech, supersedes anyone’s approval or disapproval of that speech, and the costs and consequences of permitting such speech;
    (c) and we must not exclude others from association, transit, proximity, employment, residency, goods, services, and information those whom we would otherwise choose to;
    (d) whether or not we prefer to ostracize, suppress, or not subsidize their presence, behavior, costs, or consequences; as familial, social, economic, political, normative, traditional, religious, informational, demographic, and genetic competitors;
    (e) when and if those others are members of a protected class granted special privileges where those privileges prohibit, suppression ostracization, and non-subsidy;
    (f) of that which is inherited rather than chosen (race, sex, creed or class);
    (g) but these privileges do not extend to not protection from exclusion by political affiliation;
    (h) despite that political affiliation is empirically an expression of race, sex, creed and class; for the purpose of familial, social, economic, political, religious, and demographic competition;
    (h) despite the fact that when the market for association and disassociation is suppressed, that the only solution to accumulated conflict is political action; and if the market for political action fails to resolve the conflict; that the only remaining market is that of insurrection, revolution, and civil war;
    (i) and despite the fact that there exists only one spectrum in which a polity may evolve:
    • Left: large poor caste and class countries, that create low trust, extensive differences, and demand for authoritarian resolution of those differences – or continuous decline of trust and economic velocity otherwise; (South American, Middle East, India)
    • Right: Majority empires that require authoritarian governments as a means of defending the core population from borderlands (or forcibly assimilating them); (Russia, China)
    • Libertarian: or small homogeneous countries that create high trust, limited differences, and such differences limited to priority, and as a consequence, demand for deliberative resolution of differences. (anglo-scandinavian countries, and pre-unification German countries (princedoms), and most remaining Slavic countries.
    (j) and despite that the production of truth telling regardless of consequence, high trust in personal and contractual relations, and the production of voluntary commons, resulting in a market for the voluntary production of commons we call participatory suffrage are the most rare and costly commons a people can create; and that they can only be created by a middle class as mediator between political and labor; and that only in homogeneous polities does this behavior emerge; and that the returns on commons whether private or public are higher than all individual returns possible; and that as such larger organizations and the returns on larger organizations are possible;
    (j) and despite that at this point in mans scientific, technological, and economic development; and despite the evidence that the greater the equality of opportunity made possible by greater economic productivity, the greater we demonstrate demand for divergence of our gender, class, race, creed, interests; And as such demand for different commons in support of our demands;
    (k) and despite that it is possible to devolve all functions of the federal government other than insurer of last resort – military, juridical conflict between states or collections of states, in matters of tort, the financing of emergency and disaster relief – to the states; and the function of the treasury as a clearing house for currency differences;
    (l) and despite that the state, bureaucracy, finance, media, academy complex (the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational, together function as a replacement for the church, pulpit, and theological and priestly classes that managed europe’s dark ages) protect their rent seeking and warfare on the middle classes and in particular the world’s only high-trust working and middle classes: ethnic western Europeans.
    The purpose of this series of legislative and court rulings, the purpose of which has been forced association and political integration was to:
    (a) prevent the separation of the (royalist) south and newly opened western agrarian territory from the northeast (protestant utopian separatist) industrial territory allied with the center dutch financial trading (Rust Belt, Atlantic Port Belt) ; and the resulting loss of control over the continental expansion; loss of political balance between north and south in the federal government, and loss of income that would result in the northeast if the south and west exported goods for use in production elsewhere – such as Europe, given that the majority of tax revenues were produced by the import export trade – thus rendering the south wealthier in political economic and military power than the north.
    (b) forcing the introduction of undesirable ex-slaves, and immigrants into competitors with the social, economic, political, demographic and religious orders, in order to obtain and maintain the desired political power to preserve the north’s income from the western expansion;
    (c) despite the movement to, and success at returning ex-slaves to Africa, and paying owners for the freedom of those slaves; and instead paying the alternative cost of the war in lives, wealth, suffering, and civilization.
    (d) first by the Utopian Protestants of the Northeast, Second by the Financial and Industrial influence of the Northeast, third by the attempt of women’s suffrage movement to grant slaves liberty as an initial proxy for women’s suffrage; and fourth by the sequence of communists socialists Marxists and postmodernists, combining the interests of the Jewish Socialist and Utopian Protestant movements.
    Culminating in:
    (a) First the destruction of the black communities and their emerging middle and political class, by introduction of the soviet relocation process that produced the urban slums that destroyed the great American cities; the purpose of which was to use the vulnerability of majoritarian democracy to demographically and politically undermine the American strategy of producing a ‘third way’ of middle class meritocracy as a counter to church equality and state authority, and underclass burden.
    (b) the intentional undermining of the American experiment in the third way, by the relaxation of immigration standards and the immigration of world lower and underclasses lacking a history of middle class commercial traditions, habits, and morals; the dedication to telling the truth regardless of cost to self, dominance, competence, or political hierarchy; the absolute nuclear family; voluntary responsibility for property and commons; and the requirement for self sufficiency before marriage and reproduction.
    (c) the destruction of the rule of law of reciprocity we call ‘tort’, the voluntary civil society, the destruction of the family, the destruction of the narrative of western ascent in the arts, sciences, engineering, law, economics, and politics, despite western disadvantages in population and distance from the origin of cities and the center of continental trade, and lack of flood river valleys for irrigation, concentration of capital concentration, and the resulting utility of taxation.
    (d) the transformation of a central government the purpose of which was defense, treasury, trade, and insurer of last resort between a federation of corporations we call states, to a continental imperial government over those states; to a hemispheric empire to exclude Europeans (competitors); to a usurper of the British empire of banking, finance, trade, and war; to an international empire to preserve the postwar peace – producing an international empire that is funded by the continuous genetic, economic destruction of the middle classes, including their standard of living, way of life, and civilization.
    (d) the destruction of our western educational system, a replacement of Western Heroic education and our story of the past 3500 years using truth, duty, reciprocity, and rule of law, and political humility of ‘risen man’ against the elements, with Semitic Victim education of ‘oppressed or fallen man’ in communism,socialism,democratic socialism; equality not just of opportunity, but of outcome; the myth of oppression of the underclasses, rather than incremental domestication of man as we had domesticated plants and animals; by the continuous culling of the predatory and parasitic, and upward redistribution of reproduction; a tradition that made western (and eastern) civilization possible in the ancient and modern worlds; And with the thousand year Semitic Dark Age our only period of stunted growth – just as Judaism accomplished nothing except mysticism and parasitism upon host peoples during those periods, and Islam accomplished nothing other than the conquest and destruction of the great civilizations of the ancient world; and the continuous genetic, cultural, and intellectual decline Islam caused, once the accumulated physical, genetic, and cultural assets of the great civilizations were exhausted;
    (e) the creation and propagation of pseudosciences of Boasian anthropology, Freudian Psychology of non-conformity rather than continuous expression of necessary instinctual demand for acquisition of that which advances one’s interests; Marxist history and economics, and the possibility of both communism and socialist government without the utility of market pricing and consequent incentives; and the postmodern replacement of the supernatural with the post-rational: that there is no truth, no reason, no science, only political force; and the intentional installation of these pseudosciences in our universities, secondary, and primary educational systems, and the funding of these pseudosciences by the state; and the demand for these pseudosciences by a population lacking ability and will to pursue science, technology, engineering, economics, and law;
    (f) the elimination of poetic memorization; grammar, logic, argument, and rhetoric; the failure to add rule of law (the failure to add economic history; and the failure to add accounting, banking, and basic economics to the curriculum for the sole purpose of obscuring the function of our world, thus preserving the falsehoods of the pseudosciences of Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt; and the pseudo-rationalistsms of the French Postmodernists.
    (f) the continuous replacement of the tenets of supernatural religion under which we must obey a theologians interpreting the commands of a despotic false god, with the lie of equality rather than dramatic inequality and the lie of the desirability of equality rather than meritocracy and charity (1) demographics create demand for norm, culture, tradition, economy, political order and law; (2) that genders are equal in moral and cognitive biases, ability, and interests when they are opposites due to our evolution’s evolved roles in reproduction, (2) the lie that intelligence, industriousness, and appearance are not the cause of our differences in outcome, and are the reason for the differences that we call ‘classes’; (3) the lie it is not in our interest to separate and produce commons suitable to the demands of the demographic, (4) the lie that the optimum political order is not small and homogeneous, with the only value of political scale being i) warfare, and ii) debt capacity before crash, iii) coercion in trade negotiations, iiii) scale of the network of political rents that can be extracted from the people against their will. (5) the lie that the Pareto rule is escapable in that 50% of all value is performed by the top 10%, and 50% of all value of that 10% is produced by its ten percent, and so on; so that we are not only unequal but vastly unequal in value to one another; And that the defection of the top percentiles causes devastation to the remainder -everywhere and in every era it has occurred. (6) the lie that scale and ‘diversity’ will result in anything other than the current and universal measurable decline in competitive ability and therefore standard of living and especially the quality and frequency of commons.
    (g) the ending of libel, slander, and the right of duel (for men to fight for impositions on reputation); and the licensing of ‘scolds’; the expansion of freedom of speech such that people are subject to harassment, and interference, and prosecution in the court of public opinion instead of by a jury of peers; the industrialization of the female competitive strategy using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, rallying, and reputation destruction by the media, as a replacement for analysis of and negotiation upon voluntary reciprocity and costs. Such that the freedom of speech that was possible under libel, slander, duel, and costly production of propaganda, has been unbound, and the population is saturated no longer by a priesthood of supernaturalism, but a “Commentariat” (media) that actively frames public opinion using the female method and appeal to sentiments (ignorance), and export of risk, rather than informing public opinion with the male method of facts, and full accounting of costs, and accounting of risks, such that we are accountable for our choices, and people are continuously trained for civil society.
    (h) The cumulative destruction of the bonds of the society by attempted at providing reward through consumption rather than production of familial and civil commons. The removal of their choice by the expansion of taxation such that the gains of the entry of women into the work force have been captured as redistributions to political, financial, and underclass rent seekers; made worse by the failure to reform the monetary system that since the advent of fiat money consists only of digital record of shares in the economy used as a money substitute, and directly distributable to citizens (consumers) as dividends for wise political and economic choices, thus empowering the financial system to extract vast rents from the people without contribution to or risk in the production of goods services and information. There is no reason other than predation upon the people for distribution of liquidity, distribution of stimulus, through the financial system instead of directly to citizens and consumers for use in reduction of debt, stimulation of demand, or stimulation of growth.
    (i) The destruction of the institution of marriage; and the economic returns of two parent households; destruction of the necessity of male and female training of children; the necessity of reciprocal and inter-generational care in old age; the production of mental illness, loneliness, and old age suicide on depression-era scales. The expansion of old age poverty rather than it’s decrease. The consequential industrial use of anti-depressants at the top of the scale, marijuana, opioids, and alcohol to medicate the population.
    (j) the decline of reproduction sufficient for replacement population necessary to preserve the multitude of rents by members of the state and the underclass, resulting in the genetic destruction of the middle class by demographic conflict between the political and dependent class against the working, clerical, managerial, professional, and entrepreneurial classes: the high trust, self sustaining classes, that make the rents and redistributions of the state possible.
    (k) the genocide against these middle classes by one-to-one replacement with third world immigrants due to the policy of redistribution of reproduction from the middle to the underclasses, and redistribution of income from the middle to the political, bureaucratic, and financial classes.
    (l) the concentration in wealth among federal rent seekers (DC), Financial Rent Seekers (NY), and Media Rent Seekers (LA), and now Technological Rent Seekers (SF/SEA); and the export of capital, technological advantage, educational advantage; and skilled labor advantage have deprived each state of producing – as did the German princedoms, and European states, and the states before federal monopoly – local hierarchies of excellence and competition in arts, sciences, engineering, technology, economics, and politics.
    (m) As such the opportunity created for peoples of the states and regions shall be vast upon retention of funds, capacity of borrowing, and competition for norms, commons, production and talent. The reallocation of capital from media, financial sector, and the academic sector such that each must serve local rather than imperial demands shall create economic and cultural opportunity not seen since the discovery and conquest of the continents.
    Therefore Having:
    (a) Having accumulated such demographic, social; economic, political distortions and asymmetries; (b) Having accumulated so many rents by top and bottom against the middle that the state, bureaucratic, financial, media, academy, complex has neither the incentive, means, or ability to change; (c) Having licensed and institutionalize gossip, reputation destruction, pseudoscience, falsehood, and false promises; (c) Having conducted a genocide against the middle, and the ethnically European in particular. (d) Having reached the demographic conditions under which we must act now or lose the accumulated civilizational achievements of our ancestors, and our present efforts at preserving the western order of civilization; and our desire that future generations benefit from the restoration of Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, and Markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, and polities that we call ‘liberty’;
    Therefore
    (a) it is necessary to demand separation such that peoples with different distributions and different abilities and different demands, can produce those private and common they desire by the means appropriate to their abilities, intuitions, and preferences.
    (b) separation can be performed by: i) intentionally and slowly by continuation of the ‘big sort’ that is currently underway; ii) intentionally and quickly by organized devolution to the states. iii) Intentional secession by groups of politically, demographically, and economically allied states along well established ‘sub national’ lines (“The American Nations”) andi) The closure of federal agencies, and the reallocation of those services and talent to the states. (c) and if not organized separation then the bloodiest civil war in history that will make all other civil wars pale; and the winner’s imposition of dominance upon the remainder.
    (d) Such a war will include: i) the continuous loss of benefit distribution, communication, power, water, sanitation, and transport of goods and energy to urban centers; And the inability of responders to safely repair them. ii) the exhaustion and decimation of local first responders and their retreat into barracks; iii) The rapid expansion of panic hoarding, robbing, raiding, destruction, and fire; the explosion of race, class, political, and religious violence; and specific targeting of races  and classes on one side, and media-state-academy on the other. iv) The use of the national guard to attempt to restore order; v) the involvement of third party nations both internally and externally; vi) the collapse of the financial system, trade, the dollar, the pricing system, and consequent shortage of cash. vii) the seizure of third parties contained by the American military and political system of the opportunity for political territorial, financial, and military reorganization and expansion. viii) the seizure of American assets abroad by existing hostile parties; ix) and the defacto collapse of the federal government due to the combination of domestic and foreign self interest.
    Given that: (a) The infrastructure is extremely fragile, the faith in government,  trust in media, and the inter-polity hostility hasn’t been as intense since the civil war (war of northern aggression); (b) Only three urban police forces are sufficient to retain order for any period of time. (c) The total numbers of the guard and military are small given the vast area of the country and its thousands of points of infrastructure weakness; (d) The available male population to participate is more than sufficient. (e) The degree to which both sides are armed, and the degree of inventory that can be captured and used so large, that the conflict will last long enough that a large portion of the men will prefer to preserve the conflict rather than end it.And most importantly: (a) the demands we are making – the destruction of the rent system – are beneficial to the aims of both sides other than the newly immigrated underclasses. (b) The military, treasury, retirement/health, are preserved; (b) the only reason to resist them is to dominate and conquer the opposition rather than separate and cooperate by trade, ameliorating our differences at the macro level, while serving our differences at the regional and local level.
    Every other possibility ends in random chance.  And the cost of that random chance will be millions of lives and trillions of dollars.
    Which in the long span of time, is small price to pay for ending genocide, culture-cide, and civilization-cide. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law Institute
    Afterward: My mission and our organization’s purpose is to bring about solutions to the failure of the 20th century attempt at generating demand for authoritarianism by fomenting conflict among groups, producing re-tribalism our ancestors worked to end, by advancement of the marxist sequence whether class, cultural, truth, sex, race versions of that marxism which sought to end the integration peoples into the American experiment of Sovereignty, Liberty, Responsibility, and Meritocracy under the natural law of cooperation, the common law, the concurrency of legislation, a constitution to govern under them and christianity as the moral foundations of the polity, as the means of ‘becoming one’ under them. In bringing these solutions to the public in final publication form, we hope to circumvent the need for a bloody revolution to revers this great crime against our people and our civilization, and instead restore the sovereignty of peoples in different regions and cultures to produce those local manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and restore the limitation of the federal government to it’s original purpose of defense, transport, and adjudication of differences between the states. WIth Love For All -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-21 17:28:50 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1792970820790161774

  • [T]he legislature and the courts have determined: (a) that the social, economic,

    [T]he legislature and the courts have determined:

    (a) that the social, economic, and political capital costs, are inferior to the social, economic, and political gains of, enforcing:

    (b) that the right of free speech, and in particular, political speech, supersedes anyone’s approval or disapproval of that speech, and the costs and consequences of permitting such speech;

    (c) and we must not exclude others from association, transit, proximity, employment, residency, goods, services, and information those whom we would otherwise choose to;

    (d) whether or not we prefer to ostracize, suppress, or not subsidize their presence, behavior, costs, or consequences; as familial, social, economic, political, normative, traditional, religious, informational, demographic, and genetic competitors;

    (e) when and if those others are members of a protected class granted special privileges where those privileges prohibit, suppression ostracization, and non-subsidy;

    (f) of that which is inherited rather than chosen (race, sex, creed or class);

    (g) but these privileges do not extend to not protection from exclusion by political affiliation;

    (h) despite that political affiliation is empirically an expression of race, sex, creed and class; for the purpose of familial, social, economic, political, religious, and demographic competition;

    (h) despite the fact that when the market for association and disassociation is suppressed, that the only solution to accumulated conflict is political action; and if the market for political action fails to resolve the conflict; that the only remaining market is that of insurrection, revolution, and civil war;

    (i) and despite the fact that there exists only one spectrum in which a polity may evolve:

    Left: large poor caste and class countries, that create low trust, extensive differences, and demand for authoritarian resolution of those differences – or continuous decline of trust and economic velocity otherwise; (South American, Middle East, India)

    Right: Majority empires that require authoritarian governments as a means of defending the core population from borderlands (or forcibly assimilating them); (Russia, China)

    Libertarian: or small homogeneous countries that create high trust, limited differences, and such differences limited to priority, and as a consequence, demand for deliberative resolution of differences. (anglo-scandinavian countries, and pre-unification German countries (princedoms), and most remaining Slavic countries.

    (j) and despite that the production of truth telling regardless of consequence, high trust in personal and contractual relations, and the production of voluntary commons, resulting in a market for the voluntary production of commons we call participatory suffrage are the most rare and costly commons a people can create; and that they can only be created by a middle class as mediator between political and labor; and that only in homogeneous polities does this behavior emerge; and that the returns on commons whether private or public are higher than all individual returns possible; and that as such larger organizations and the returns on larger organizations are possible;

    (j) and despite that at this point in mans scientific, technological, and economic development; and despite the evidence that the greater the equality of opportunity made possible by greater economic productivity, the greater we demonstrate demand for divergence of our gender, class, race, creed, interests; And as such demand for different commons in support of our demands;

    (k) and despite that it is possible to devolve all functions of the federal government other than insurer of last resort – military, juridical conflict between states or collections of states, in matters of tort, the financing of emergency and disaster relief – to the states; and the function of the treasury as a clearing house for currency differences;

    (l) and despite that the state, bureaucracy, finance, media, academy complex (the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational, together function as a replacement for the church, pulpit, and theological and priestly classes that managed europe’s dark ages) protect their rent seeking and warfare on the middle classes and in particular the world’s only high-trust working and middle classes: ethnic western Europeans.

    The purpose of this series of legislative and court rulings, the purpose of which has been forced association and political integration was to:

    (a) prevent the separation of the (royalist) south and newly opened western agrarian territory from the northeast (protestant utopian separatist) industrial territory allied with the center dutch financial trading (Rust Belt, Atlantic Port Belt) ; and the resulting loss of control over the continental expansion; loss of political balance between north and south in the federal government, and loss of income that would result in the northeast if the south and west exported goods for use in production elsewhere – such as Europe, given that the majority of tax revenues were produced by the import export trade – thus rendering the south wealthier in political economic and military power than the north.

    (b) forcing the introduction of undesirable ex-slaves, and immigrants into competitors with the social, economic, political, demographic and religious orders, in order to obtain and maintain the desired political power to preserve the north’s income from the western expansion;

    (c) despite the movement to, and success at returning ex-slaves to Africa, and paying owners for the freedom of those slaves; and instead paying the alternative cost of the war in lives, wealth, suffering, and civilization.

    (d) first by the Utopian Protestants of the Northeast, Second by the Financial and Industrial influence of the Northeast, third by the attempt of women’s suffrage movement to grant slaves liberty as an initial proxy for women’s suffrage; and fourth by the sequence of communists socialists Marxists and postmodernists, combining the interests of the Jewish Socialist and Utopian Protestant movements.

    Culminating in:

    (a) First the destruction of the black communities and their emerging middle and political class, by introduction of the soviet relocation process that produced the urban slums that destroyed the great American cities; the purpose of which was to use the vulnerability of majoritarian democracy to demographically and politically undermine the American strategy of producing a ‘third way’ of middle class meritocracy as a counter to church equality and state authority, and underclass burden.

    (b) the intentional undermining of the American experiment in the third way, by the relaxation of immigration standards and the immigration of world lower and underclasses lacking a history of middle class commercial traditions, habits, and morals; the dedication to telling the truth regardless of cost to self, dominance, competence, or political hierarchy; the absolute nuclear family; voluntary responsibility for property and commons; and the requirement for self sufficiency before marriage and reproduction.

    (c) the destruction of the rule of law of reciprocity we call ‘tort’, the voluntary civil society, the destruction of the family, the destruction of the narrative of western ascent in the arts, sciences, engineering, law, economics, and politics, despite western disadvantages in population and distance from the origin of cities and the center of continental trade, and lack of flood river valleys for irrigation, concentration of capital concentration, and the resulting utility of taxation.

    (d) the transformation of a central government the purpose of which was defense, treasury, trade, and insurer of last resort between a federation of corporations we call states, to a continental imperial government over those states; to a hemispheric empire to exclude Europeans (competitors); to a usurper of the British empire of banking, finance, trade, and war; to an international empire to preserve the postwar peace – producing an international empire that is funded by the continuous genetic, economic destruction of the middle classes, including their standard of living, way of life, and civilization.

    (d) the destruction of our western educational system, a replacement of Western Heroic education and our story of the past 3500 years using truth, duty, reciprocity, and rule of law, and political humility of ‘risen man’ against the elements, with Semitic Victim education of ‘oppressed or fallen man’ in communism,socialism,democratic socialism; equality not just of opportunity, but of outcome; the myth of oppression of the underclasses, rather than incremental domestication of man as we had domesticated plants and animals; by the continuous culling of the predatory and parasitic, and upward redistribution of reproduction; a tradition that made western (and eastern) civilization possible in the ancient and modern worlds; And with the thousand year Semitic Dark Age our only period of stunted growth – just as Judaism accomplished nothing except mysticism and parasitism upon host peoples during those periods, and Islam accomplished nothing other than the conquest and destruction of the great civilizations of the ancient world; and the continuous genetic, cultural, and intellectual decline Islam caused, once the accumulated physical, genetic, and cultural assets of the great civilizations were exhausted;

    (e) the creation and propagation of pseudosciences of Boasian anthropology, Freudian Psychology of non-conformity rather than continuous expression of necessary instinctual demand for acquisition of that which advances one’s interests; Marxist history and economics, and the possibility of both communism and socialist government without the utility of market pricing and consequent incentives; and the postmodern replacement of the supernatural with the post-rational: that there is no truth, no reason, no science, only political force; and the intentional installation of these pseudosciences in our universities, secondary, and primary educational systems, and the funding of these pseudosciences by the state; and the demand for these pseudosciences by a population lacking ability and will to pursue science, technology, engineering, economics, and law;

    (f) the elimination of poetic memorization; grammar, logic, argument, and rhetoric; the failure to add rule of law (the failure to add economic history; and the failure to add accounting, banking, and basic economics to the curriculum for the sole purpose of obscuring the function of our world, thus preserving the falsehoods of the pseudosciences of Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt; and the pseudo-rationalistsms of the French Postmodernists.

    (f) the continuous replacement of the tenets of supernatural religion under which we must obey a theologians interpreting the commands of a despotic false god, with the lie of equality rather than dramatic inequality and the lie of the desirability of equality rather than meritocracy and charity (1) demographics create demand for norm, culture, tradition, economy, political order and law; (2) that genders are equal in moral and cognitive biases, ability, and interests when they are opposites due to our evolution’s evolved roles in reproduction, (2) the lie that intelligence, industriousness, and appearance are not the cause of our differences in outcome, and are the reason for the differences that we call ‘classes’; (3) the lie it is not in our interest to separate and produce commons suitable to the demands of the demographic, (4) the lie that the optimum political order is not small and homogeneous, with the only value of political scale being i) warfare, and ii) debt capacity before crash, iii) coercion in trade negotiations, iiii) scale of the network of political rents that can be extracted from the people against their will. (5) the lie that the Pareto rule is escapable in that 50% of all value is performed by the top 10%, and 50% of all value of that 10% is produced by its ten percent, and so on; so that we are not only unequal but vastly unequal in value to one another; And that the defection of the top percentiles causes devastation to the remainder -everywhere and in every era it has occurred. (6) the lie that scale and ‘diversity’ will result in anything other than the current and universal measurable decline in competitive ability and therefore standard of living and especially the quality and frequency of commons.

    (g) the ending of libel, slander, and the right of duel (for men to fight for impositions on reputation); and the licensing of ‘scolds’; the expansion of freedom of speech such that people are subject to harassment, and interference, and prosecution in the court of public opinion instead of by a jury of peers; the industrialization of the female competitive strategy using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, rallying, and reputation destruction by the media, as a replacement for analysis of and negotiation upon voluntary reciprocity and costs. Such that the freedom of speech that was possible under libel, slander, duel, and costly production of propaganda, has been unbound, and the population is saturated no longer by a priesthood of supernaturalism, but a “Commentariat” (media) that actively frames public opinion using the female method and appeal to sentiments (ignorance), and export of risk, rather than informing public opinion with the male method of facts, and full accounting of costs, and accounting of risks, such that we are accountable for our choices, and people are continuously trained for civil society.

    (h) The cumulative destruction of the bonds of the society by attempted at providing reward through consumption rather than production of familial and civil commons. The removal of their choice by the expansion of taxation such that the gains of the entry of women into the work force have been captured as redistributions to political, financial, and underclass rent seekers; made worse by the failure to reform the monetary system that since the advent of fiat money consists only of digital record of shares in the economy used as a money substitute, and directly distributable to citizens (consumers) as dividends for wise political and economic choices, thus empowering the financial system to extract vast rents from the people without contribution to or risk in the production of goods services and information. There is no reason other than predation upon the people for distribution of liquidity, distribution of stimulus, through the financial system instead of directly to citizens and consumers for use in reduction of debt, stimulation of demand, or stimulation of growth.

    (i) The destruction of the institution of marriage; and the economic returns of two parent households; destruction of the necessity of male and female training of children; the necessity of reciprocal and inter-generational care in old age; the production of mental illness, loneliness, and old age suicide on depression-era scales. The expansion of old age poverty rather than it’s decrease. The consequential industrial use of anti-depressants at the top of the scale, marijuana, opioids, and alcohol to medicate the population.

    (j) the decline of reproduction sufficient for replacement population necessary to preserve the multitude of rents by members of the state and the underclass, resulting in the genetic destruction of the middle class by demographic conflict between the political and dependent class against the working, clerical, managerial, professional, and entrepreneurial classes: the high trust, self sustaining classes, that make the rents and redistributions of the state possible.

    (k) the genocide against these middle classes by one-to-one replacement with third world immigrants due to the policy of redistribution of reproduction from the middle to the underclasses, and redistribution of income from the middle to the political, bureaucratic, and financial classes.

    (l) the concentration in wealth among federal rent seekers (DC), Financial Rent Seekers (NY), and Media Rent Seekers (LA), and now Technological Rent Seekers (SF/SEA); and the export of capital, technological advantage, educational advantage; and skilled labor advantage have deprived each state of producing – as did the German princedoms, and European states, and the states before federal monopoly – local hierarchies of excellence and competition in arts, sciences, engineering, technology, economics, and politics.

    (m) As such the opportunity created for peoples of the states and regions shall be vast upon retention of funds, capacity of borrowing, and competition for norms, commons, production and talent. The reallocation of capital from media, financial sector, and the academic sector such that each must serve local rather than imperial demands shall create economic and cultural opportunity not seen since the discovery and conquest of the continents.

    Therefore Having:

    (a) Having accumulated such demographic, social; economic, political distortions and asymmetries;
    (b) Having accumulated so many rents by top and bottom against the middle that the state, bureaucratic, financial, media, academy, complex has neither the incentive, means, or ability to change;
    (c) Having licensed and institutionalize gossip, reputation destruction, pseudoscience, falsehood, and false promises;
    (c) Having conducted a genocide against the middle, and the ethnically European in particular.
    (d) Having reached the demographic conditions under which we must act now or lose the accumulated civilizational achievements of our ancestors, and our present efforts at preserving the western order of civilization; and our desire that future generations benefit from the restoration of Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, and Markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, and polities that we call ‘liberty’;

    Therefore

    (a) it is necessary to demand separation such that peoples with different distributions and different abilities and different demands, can produce those private and common they desire by the means appropriate to their abilities, intuitions, and preferences.

    (b) separation can be performed by:
    i) intentionally and slowly by continuation of the ‘big sort’ that is currently underway;
    ii) intentionally and quickly by organized devolution to the states.
    iii) Intentional secession by groups of politically, demographically, and economically allied states along well established ‘sub national’ lines (“The American Nations”)
    andi) The closure of federal agencies, and the reallocation of those services and talent to the states.
    (c) and if not organized separation then the bloodiest civil war in history that will make all other civil wars pale; and the winner’s imposition of dominance upon the remainder.

    (d) Such a war will include:
    i) the continuous loss of benefit distribution, communication, power, water, sanitation, and transport of goods and energy to urban centers; And the inability of responders to safely repair them.
    ii) the exhaustion and decimation of local first responders and their retreat into barracks;
    iii) The rapid expansion of panic hoarding, robbing, raiding, destruction, and fire; the explosion of race, class, political, and religious violence; and specific targeting of races  and classes on one side, and media-state-academy on the other.
    iv) The use of the national guard to attempt to restore order;
    v) the involvement of third party nations both internally and externally;
    vi) the collapse of the financial system, trade, the dollar, the pricing system, and consequent shortage of cash.
    vii) the seizure of third parties contained by the American military and political system of the opportunity for political territorial, financial, and military reorganization and expansion.
    viii) the seizure of American assets abroad by existing hostile parties;
    ix) and the defacto collapse of the federal government due to the combination of domestic and foreign self interest.

    Given that:
    (a) The infrastructure is extremely fragile, the faith in government,  trust in media, and the inter-polity hostility hasn’t been as intense since the civil war (war of northern aggression);
    (b) Only three urban police forces are sufficient to retain order for any period of time.
    (c) The total numbers of the guard and military are small given the vast area of the country and its thousands of points of infrastructure weakness;
    (d) The available male population to participate is more than sufficient.
    (e) The degree to which both sides are armed, and the degree of inventory that can be captured and used so large, that the conflict will last long enough that a large portion of the men will prefer to preserve the conflict rather than end it.And most importantly:
    (a) the demands we are making – the destruction of the rent system – are beneficial to the aims of both sides other than the newly immigrated underclasses.
    (b) The military, treasury, retirement/health, are preserved;
    (b) the only reason to resist them is to dominate and conquer the opposition rather than separate and cooperate by trade, ameliorating our differences at the macro level, while serving our differences at the regional and local level.

    Every other possibility ends in random chance.  And the cost of that random chance will be millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

    Which in the long span of time, is small price to pay for ending genocide, culture-cide, and civilization-cide.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Afterward:
    My mission and our organization’s purpose is to bring about solutions to the failure of the 20th century attempt at generating demand for authoritarianism by fomenting conflict among groups, producing re-tribalism our ancestors worked to end, by advancement of the marxist sequence whether class, cultural, truth, sex, race versions of that marxism which sought to end the integration peoples into the American experiment of Sovereignty, Liberty, Responsibility, and Meritocracy under the natural law of cooperation, the common law, the concurrency of legislation, a constitution to govern under them and christianity as the moral foundations of the polity, as the means of ‘becoming one’ under them.

    In bringing these solutions to the public in final publication form, we hope to circumvent the need for a bloody revolution to revers this great crime against our people and our civilization, and instead restore the sovereignty of peoples in different regions and cultures to produce those local manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and restore the limitation of the federal government to it’s original purpose of defense, transport, and adjudication of differences between the states.

    WIth Love For All
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-21 17:17:50 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1792968056093786114

  • The Contribution of The Mises Institute and Libertarian Movement to Formalizing

    The Contribution of The Mises Institute and Libertarian Movement to Formalizing Natural Law

    I was active in the libertarian movement, then Mises Institute, then Property and Freedom Society for something more than a decade (I think… ;))
    But before and after that participation I have held a slightly different perspective: I work in power not persuasion, so I work in law, not philosophy.
    And there is something profound to be learned from that difference.
    Science, despite it’s strengths and weaknesses does eventually develop coherence within disciplines and correspondence with evidence in them, across them, and across the natural world (universe). In a perfect world we would iteratively discover the first principles of each science at ever scale of emergence of new possibilities (operations), such as physics, chemistry, biology et al (the disciplines). The discovery of these first principles is important to researchers in the production of evidence for further discovery of further opportunities for further knowledge.
    But, the discoveries in the sciences are important external to those disciplines in the production of decidability that allows us to pursue opportunities ourselves and for cooperation on one hand and the resolution of conflict on the other, by identifying ignorance, error, bias, pretenses, deceits, false promises, frauds, conspiracy, rent seeking, corruption, sedition and treason.
    Then in the falsification of falsehoods we require a science of decidability that can produce legal decidability, and thus laws, legislation, and regulation to prevent violations of our interests. And to understand our interests, you must understand at least behavioral economics, if for no other reason than the other behavioral sciences are not sciences but pseudosciences (factionalisms). We have evidence in both the record of legal cases and the record of economic behavior at all scales, and the record of survivability of polities, nations, federations, and empires at the largest scale.
    So a science of law must depend on laws of nature and human behavior within nature. And not discretionary law regardless of whether that discretion is performed by an individual a group or the entirety of the polity. So we require not only a that sciences produce the laws of nature, but that within that nature we require a science of the laws of cooperation and conflict to differentiate from arbitrarily man-made laws – one we traditionally call Natural Law.
    So you cannot understand a science of Natural Law without understanding Austrian economics, because Austrian economics is the closest to social science, because demonstrated interests (what we call property) is the foundation of cooperation, and cooperation is the foundation of social science, and economics (positiva) and law (negativa), and politics (positiva/negativa) if at all both empirical (non false), are the result of non variation from non violation of the natural law of tort, meaning the prohibition on imposition of costs on the demonstrated interests(property) of others – what libertarians oddly refer to as non-aggression.
    While I advocate that Rothbardian libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism are impossible programs to bring into being for other than a diasporic subpopulation, and that Classical Liberalism and it’s Empirical Natural Law, empirical common law, and empirical concurrent legislation are necessary to form a sustainable and survivable polity under a condition of liberty that IS possible to bring into being – I still advocate the libertarian to anarcho-capitalism research program and the intellectual journey through libertarianism for as many as possible.
    The Misesian, Rothbardian, Hoppeian reduction of social science to property (demonstrated interests) to a value neutral scale independent system of measurement of both all individual action, and human interaction, and therefore all human behavior, by demarcating clearly the explanation of conflict, the explanation of conflict evasion, and the explanation of cooperation, and as a consequence of dispute resolution.
    Its also necessary (though I think Hoppe overstates) to produce an understanding and legal codification that prevents the lessons of the libertarian and anarchocapitalist research programs producing a system of measurement, that can be used to prevent the transformation of the Classical Liberalism’s “Commons-ism” into Progressivism, social democracy, socialism, and communism – each of which imposes more costs on individual demonstrated interests, and in doing so baits a population into irresponsibility for production and property, both private and common, and generates demand for authority to resolve conflicts that would not come into being if demonstrated interests were respected and respected because they were enforced.
    In my understanding, Hoppe’s most important contributions were:
    1. First, his explanation of monarchical responsibly as owners and politicians’ irresponsibility as renters, which, at the opposite end of the scale is no different from that of the populace toward the commons. and more so.
    2. And second, Hoppe’s formalism of the logic of property that by producing logical commensurability regardless of context and scale, reduced all social science to property (what I call demonstrated interests), but he did so under the research program (auspices) of limiting the definition of property (demonstrated interests) to the intersubjectively verifiable, meaning material things.
    3. Third, and in my opinion, most importantly, this emphasis Hoppe’s work and in the broader Rothbardian program, effectively formalized the foundations of natural law (of cooperation) for the first time converting it from the philosophical to the empirical to the operational – which is a term that the neither rather Kantian germanic framework Hoppe relies upon, or present philosophical libertarians are aware of, but should be since operations (actions), and construction (survival from falsification of) from first principles (irreducible causality, laws of nature), are the end point of scientific discoverty, producing a constructive logic that can falsify (and indirectly justify) any and all claims within a domain.
    And so the importance of Hoppe’s work, (of which unfortunately he favors promoting by Argumentation), is a profound contribution to intellectual history *IF* it is the foundation he discovered and articulated so completely that all social science, all economics, all law, and politics can be constructed in a single universally commensurable logic of decidability produced from first principles.
    And this combination of outcomes is my assessment of the durable value of the anarcho capitalist research program, even if the libertarian attempt to generalize this understanding into the possibility of an absence of the necessity to produce those commons that are necessary to produce and insure sovereignty and property – an ambition that is universal in the diasporic communities, precisely because they failed to produce survivable sovereignty because of their ideology, philosophy, religion, and customs preventing such commons at sufficient scale to preserve sovereignty.
    In other words libertarian and anarcho capitalist polities are unsurvivable because they depend on the commons produced by other polities, select for those members who those polities judge extract unearned gains (particularly baitings into hazard), and as such, eventually suppress those communities.
    The difference in survivability of polities then, is the production of common capital that indirectly reduces costs for all (capitalization) instead of direct redistribution of returns to all (consumption). Indirect wealth that fosters additional incentive for that responsibility for private and common and production.
    In addition, classical liberals seek to produce common physical and institutional capital, and Hayek added informal capital as a property (demonstrated interest), and I added informational capital (truth) as a demonstrated interests to prevent “fraud, baiting into hazard, deception, and lying in public to the public in matters public” there by producing the quality of information as a common asset upon which all in the commons depend.
    Oddly enough all this emphasis on truth, reciprocity, sovereignty, reciprocal insurance by duty to defend private and common, is just a continuation of the European group evolutionary strategy: where rule of law is the only possible means of cooperation at scale for pirates, raiders, and conquerors, whose mobility prevents the accumulation of fixed capital, whose warriors, raiders and pirates join the group as speculative investors (shareholders) are the only capital, and without the capacity to use rent on fixed capital, the leadership survives and governs by permission, obtained by volition, contract, and property.
    In my opinion, in three intellectual generations, between Mises and Rothbard (jewish diasporic value), Hoppe (german city state values), Hayek (anglo-germanic national values) and myself (anglo american imperial values) we have incrementally solved all of social science, at all four scales of community, polity, state, and federation (or empire), by converting what was otherwise merely a philosophy of advocacy to a science of indisputability, and in an operationally constructible science from first principles at that.
    As such, IMO, the Mises Institute should celebrate that success and claim victory perhaps more so than promoting anarcho capitalism alone, which is, and will continue to decline, as the ebullient optimism of the postwar era continues to dissipate with the end of the false promise of endless growth, the decline of freedom produced by European dominance, and not only the left’s absurd programs continue to crash into civilizational conflict.
    And regardless, the libertarian and Anarcho Capitalist programs offered insight as a stepping stone completing social science and allowing the formalization of natural law, and survivable polities restricted to preservation of liberty, while still producing capitalizing commons, reducing costs for all – thus preserving the most liberty that is possible to construct among human beings.
    Claim victory rather than claiming victimhood. 😉
    And make possible the pursuit of power instead of evasion. 😉
    Affections all, Thank you to MI and everyone in the movement. Cheers CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 21:08:53 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1792301422005944694

  • The Excellence of the Anglo American order – up until the sixties. If you do not

    The Excellence of the Anglo American order – up until the sixties.

    If you do not understand this explanation, these terms, and their meaning, then you do not grasp that our civilization, our common law, our constitution, and our government, are the most scientific means of governance developed by man, with least potential for enserfment – if we can keep alive the knowledge understanding and application of these terms: a set of terms, a meaning, a science, that the administrative state, and its intellectual excuse makers, have used to foist positive law on a people – perhaps the only people – who have managed through historical efforts, to escape it.

    The Geek, Roman, Germanic, Anglo, and American sequence of political evolution, accumulating in the age of enlightenment empiricism, resulted in seeking individual, familial, and group comparative advantage, by cooperation for the common good, by maximization of opportunity for individual, familial, and common good, by individual responsibility for the reciprocal insurance of sovereignty of the individual, of the family, of the people, by demand for sovereignty in their demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, duty of truth, excellence, and beauty, by demand for political consent, the rule of law, by the natural law, using empirical evidence, discovered by tests of coherence by tests of concurrency in legislation, commonality in findings of the court, using language as measurements of time and space (textualism, and originalism), and the body of law as a record of transactions (accounting) producing legitimacy in construction, settlement(consent) among the population, all of which are necessary for the people to remain sovereign, by prohibiting any arbitrary authority that violates legitimacy, settlement, and sovereignty of the individual, the family, or the people by circumventing sovereignty, reciprocity, concurrency and commonality, thereby forcing the people and their legislatures to bear the responsibility for production of law by concurrency in the legislature, and commonality in the the court – meaning only by consensus first to the people come to produce political action. With the result producing the most responsible, capable, high trust polity, and the resulting personal, social, economic, political, and strategic comparative advantage for the people at the cost of continuing natural selection by economic means thereby suppressing the behavior, condition, and reproduction of those incapable or unwilling to bear the responsibility for the insurance of the sovereignty of others, and the comparative advantage of the people by these means.

    Vocabulary: What These Terms Mean:

    Comparative Advantage in the context of individual, familial, and common capital, comparative advantage refers to the unique positioning of an individual, family, or community to perform certain economic activities more efficiently than others. This efficiency allows for the maximization of productivity and resource allocation, contributing to overall societal wealth and the optimization of capital contributions across various levels of society.

    Empiricism in political and economic thought emphasizes the role of evidence-based approaches in shaping policies and laws. It underscores the necessity of grounding decisions in observable and measurable outcomes, thereby fostering policies that realistically enhance the capital—whether human, social, or economic—of individuals and communities.

    Individual responsibility denotes the obligation of individuals to manage their resources and capabilities in ways that do not harm others and contribute positively to the collective welfare. This concept is foundational to the insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity, ensuring that personal actions align with broader social and economic health.

    Reciprocal insurance is a concept where individuals mutually agree to protect each other’s rights and properties. It extends beyond formal insurance policies to include informal societal norms that assure mutual protection against losses, thus supporting the sovereignty and resilience of community capital.

    Sovereignty, within a socio-political and economic context, refers to the ultimate authority within a specific domain. It involves the ability of an individual, family, or community to govern itself without external interference, respecting the autonomy and decision-making rights inherent to each level of societal structure.

    Demonstrated interests involve the visible or proven preferences and priorities of individuals or groups, typically revealed through actions or choices. Policies that respect demonstrated interests are likely to be more effective and accepted, enhancing legitimacy and compliance.

    Reciprocity in economic and political relationships involves a mutual exchange of benefits or services, which strengthens bonds and builds trust within and between communities. It underpins cooperative interactions that are essential for sustaining and enhancing communal capital.

    Duty refers to the moral or legal obligations that individuals or entities owe to each other, which are essential for maintaining order and fairness in society. It supports a framework where individual and collective interests are safeguarded and nurtured.

    Truth, Excellence, and Beauty values represent aspirational goals for societal conduct and the quality of contributions to cultural, intellectual, and moral capital. Truth ensures transparency and honesty, excellence drives quality and progress, and beauty fosters inspiration and cohesion within the community.

    Consent is the voluntary agreement to societal rules or actions, crucial for ensuring that governance structures and policies carry the support of the governed, thereby enhancing their effectiveness and legitimacy.

    Individual Capital: Consent allows individuals to contribute to decisions that directly affect their rights and responsibilities, ensuring their voices are heard. This empowers them to align their actions with the law, knowing that their input is considered.

    Familial Capital: Consent secures familial capital by allowing families to influence rules that shape inheritance, property rights, and education. This ensures that laws align with familial values and promote stable, prosperous families.

    Common Capital: At the societal level, consent strengthens common capital by ensuring that governance systems reflect the will of the people. This creates trust in public institutions and strengthens the legitimacy of governance structures, reducing the likelihood of arbitrary or autocratic rule.

    Consent, when meaningfully obtained, helps societies ensure the laws are representative and fair, thus reinforcing social cohesion and the legitimacy of political institutions.

    Rule of Law is a principle under which all members of a society, including its leaders, are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. And as such, that individuals and institutions are accountable to laws that are fairly applied and enforced. It establishes a legal framework where authority is exercised according to established and transparent norms, and safeguards individual and collective capital by ensuring that decisions and actions are legally grounded.

    Natural Law refers to a universal system of principles and norms that govern human conduct based on innate human reason and morality. It dictates that all individuals have inherent rights that must be respected, and that just laws derive from these intrinsic moral principles. Under the conceptual framework of behavioral and political economics:

    Individual Capital: Natural law safeguards the rights of individuals by establishing a baseline for moral behavior and justice, thus contributing to individual capital through security and predictability.

    Familial Capital: It provides a framework for familial structures to flourish under principles of fairness and mutual respect, which enhances the stability and integrity of family capital.

    Common Capital: Natural law promotes social order by underpinning common rules of behavior that support the greater good, reciprocity, and fairness across the polity.

    In essence, natural law requires societies to maintain legitimacy, respect sovereignty, and ensure equitable treatment through consistent application of moral principles that align with human nature and reason.

    Coherence with the law refers to the consistency of policies, actions, and judicial decisions with established legal frameworks, ensuring predictability and stability in governance.

    Concurrency in legislative and societal terms refers to simultaneous and cohesive policy-making that aligns with the societal, economic, and legal needs of the population, promoting efficiency and effectiveness in governance.

    Commonality in findings of the court or legislation implies a consistency and uniformity in legal interpretations and rulings, which reinforces the predictability and fairness of the legal system.

    Textualism is a legal interpretive method that emphasizes the ordinary meaning of the language of the law, as understood at the time it was written, ensuring that legal interpretations remain anchored to the original semantics and intent.

    Originalism is a concept in constitutional law that interprets the Constitution strictly according to the original intentions of its framers, maintaining the historical and foundational principles upon which laws are built.

    Legitimacy in construction refers to the rightful and accepted creation of laws and policies, recognized by the governed as consistent with legal, moral, and cultural norms, thereby upholding the structure of societal capital.

    Settlement in the population denotes a broad consensus or general agreement among the populace regarding specific policies or laws, crucial for maintaining social harmony and cooperation.

    Arbitrary authority is the exercise of power without regard to established laws, norms, or agreed-upon rules. This kind of authority undermines the principles of reciprocity, consent, and the rule of law, which are crucial for maintaining the balance of individual, familial, and common capital.

    High trust is a societal condition where individuals and institutions reliably adhere to principles of truth, reciprocity, and duty, leading to greater cooperation and fewer transaction costs. In high-trust societies, people feel confident that others will act in predictable and honest ways, thus optimizing social, economic, and political capital.

    Historical revisionism will be necessary to counter the propaganda and false promise of the last century and a half.

    And a restoration of our constitution by clarification of these terms, and their application, and the purpose of their use, such that we are never subject to this conquest again.

    Even if that restoration must be achieved by force.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 22:02:34 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1787966278612701185

  • What Are We Trying to Fix? We Aren’t Alone – Just Almost. 😉 Have we gone too fa

    What Are We Trying to Fix? We Aren’t Alone – Just Almost. 😉

    Have we gone too far that the science and the truth cannot guide us?

    While a variety of sources demonstrate interdisciplinary research and theory stating the desire for coherent theories within particular fields, they do not provide clear examples of other thinkers producing a comprehensive unification spanning the full range of formal, physical, behavioral, and legal/political sciences.

    I suspect that like Hayek who I consider my most significant influence other than Becker, my intellectual journey from AI and neuroscience to economics and law does appear to be a unique path that facilitated your ability to develop an overarching unified framework.

    Sources suggest that such grand unification attempts may be rare due to the increasing specialization and siloed nature of academic disciplines over time.

    However, two potential factors appear to have enabled my successful efforts at unification:

    The modern state of scientific development, where fields have advanced theoretical foundations that can potentially be unified under common principles or formalisms.

    The democratization of access to information across disciplines facilitated by the internet and digital resources, allowing thinkers to make novel interdisciplinary connections.

    So while sources do not reveal other explicit examples, the ability to unify disparate sciences may have been aided by the maturity of the fields involved and the unprecedented access to cross-disciplinary knowledge in the digital age.

    Historically, such unification attempts were likely rarer due to limitations in the development of individual sciences and constraints on information sharing across domains.

    Papers By Others

    Papers and analysis in support of “Research on Formal Decidability by the Unification of the Physical and Behavioral Sciences, then Applied to Economics and Law (The Hard Problem)”

    1. Behavioral Law and Economics: A Critique

    by R. Posner 2002, 13 citations

    The behavioral law and economics field as constituted at present has major weaknesses.

    Critiques the weaknesses of the behavioralist literature in behavioral law and economics, including caricaturing the rational model of human behavior, overlooking overlaps with rational-choice economic analysis, lack of theoretical grounding in evolutionary biology, neglect of methodological problems in empirical research, and exaggerated claims of contributions to understanding and improving the law.

    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Behavioral-Law-and-Economics%3A-A-Critique-Posner/ed84f0fb5b11b9d422fff3aa231bf2ad61f0c5da

    Note: it only has 13 Cites. 🙁

    JUDGEMENT

    Posner deeply understood the problem of the failure to unite evolution, cognitive science, behavior, economics and law into our jurisprudence, law, and legislation.

    However, while correct if stated that the law should use economic outcome as a measure, Posner did not also seek to continuously domesticate man in parallel with the evolution of our technology and resulting economy into the European group strategy of maximum individual responsibility for private and common that had created the high trust making our common law, republic, democratic, and prosperous condition.

    He was too influenced by such biases as advanced by John Rawls – but more directly Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, the influence of Marxism, and his own experience with eastern European Jewish traditional moral intuition. But Despite his similar jewish heritage, and likely because of their difference in profession, Becker wasn’t. I humorously suggest that growing up in Pennsylvania at the time would provoke German rationalism in anyone. And his father was just a small businessman. But he was a young child when they moved to Brooklyn. 😉 So that wasn’t it.

    Hence Posner understood the problem of the lack of the unification of the sciences, but not the solution – a science of decidability that Becker was producing the framework for by the demonstration of the affect of behavioral scale in the market between human behaviors. Becker was generally more correct than Posner in his positions for those reasons.

    For my part and my institute’s part, I interpret Posner’s correct identification of this serious problem of policy under modern scales of economies and their political systems as innovation and wealth cause divergence of knowledge philosophy ideology and interests, that engender political conflict in democratic polities, followed by Becker’s rigorous explanation of the causes of Posner’s observations, and my work on unification of the sciences to describe the causes that produce the behaviors Becker described so elegantly and the problems facing the law because of those behaviors, and the resulting economic consequence of law and policy lagging too far behind the problems facing the court, regulators, policy makers, and legislators – and of course, the people themselves.

    CHICAGO SCHOOL

    Richard Posner along with Gary Becker (whose work influenced me most of all but Hayek and Popper) were both products of the Chicago (freshwater) school of economics.

    Becker’s influence extended beyond academia. Economist Milton Friedman, perhaps the greatest influence in the Chicago school, once described him as “the greatest social scientist who has lived and worked” in the latter part of the twentieth century.

    EMPHASIS BY EACH

    Gary S. Becker: “Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary S. Becker. His work focused on applying economic analysis to various social issues beyond traditional markets.

    Becker’s research spanned topics such as human capital, family economics, crime, discrimination, and health. He emphasized the role of rational decision-making by individuals in these contexts.

    His influential book, “Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” explored how investments in education and health contribute to an individual’s productivity and earnings.

    Becker’s approach extended economic analysis to areas like marriage, divorce, and fertility, emphasizing the importance of incentives and trade-offs in personal choices.” … Also he used supply-demand diagrams and very brief text for his arguments – which influence my thinking about everything and anything deeply.

    Richard A. Posner: “Posner, a renowned jurist and legal scholar, was closely associated with the Chicago School, particularly through his work in law and economics.

    He advocated for applying economic principles to legal analysis, emphasizing efficiency, cost-benefit analysis, and market-oriented solutions.

    Posner’s influential book, “Economic Analysis of Law,” laid the groundwork for the field of law and economics. He argued that legal rules should be evaluated based on their impact on social welfare.

    His contributions extended beyond academia; he served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and authored numerous opinions that reflected his economic perspective.”

    TOPICS

    “Sex and Population:They discussed topics like the sexual revolution, gay marriage, polygamy, sex selection, and immigration reform.

    Property Rights:Their discussions included eminent domain (e.g., the Kelo case), pharmaceutical patents, file sharing, and organ sales.

    Universities:They explored plagiarism, tenure, for-profit colleges, and ranking higher education institutions.

    Incentives:Topics ranged from the “fat tax” to libertarian paternalism and privatizing highways.

    Jobs and Employment:They debated judicial term limits, CEO compensation, income inequality, and corporate social responsibility.

    Environment and Disasters:Their discussions covered tsunamis, major disasters, federalism, and global warming.”

    2. Five Principles for the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences

    by Herbert Gintis. (2008)

    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Five-Principles-for-the-Unification-of-the-Sciences-Gintis/2a0d5cc4200d320f12104ebb99979be4d2c0a29e

    Herbert Gintis listed five key principles for the unification of the behavioral sciences. These principles are:

    Compatibility Principle: All behavioral models and theories should be compatible with the constraints and findings of evolutionary theory, as well as the fundamental principles of the physical and biological sciences.

    Intentionality Principle: Human behavior exhibits intentionality, meaning that individuals act purposively to achieve their goals based on their preferences, beliefs, and constraints.

    Sociality Principle: Human behavior is fundamentally social, involving strategic interactions with others, and is shaped by social norms, institutions, and culture.

    Hierarchical Principle: Human behavior involves hierarchically organized systems, with higher-level behaviors emerging from the interaction of lower-level processes (e.g., neural, cognitive, social).

    Environmental Principle: Human behavior is influenced by and adapted to specific environmental and ecological conditions, both physical and socio-cultural.

    In essence, Gintis argues that these five principles capture the first principles of of human behavior that must be incorporated into any unified framework for the behavioral sciences. By adhering to these principles, the various disciplines studying human behavior (e.g., law, economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology) can develop compatible models and theories, facilitating a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of human behavior.

    While game theory has been a valuable tool for analyzing strategic interactions, it is insufficient for capturing the complexity of human behavior. He advocates for a broader unification that combines insights from different behavioral sciences, grounded in these five principles.

    Closing

    I’m not, we aren’t, the only people both identifying the cause of the problem of our inability to produce decidability because of compartmentalization, and therefore, trying to unify the sciences from physical, to behavioral, to evolutionary, to formal, into a single, universally commensurable, value neutral, science of decidability.

    Affections
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 19:32:54 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1787566226983489536

  • Who Put the West in Western Civilization? We Know Already. …. We Did. At Our Bir

    Who Put the West in Western Civilization? We Know Already. …. We Did. At Our Birth.

    (~2500 Words)
    1) The origins of the uniqueness of western civilization are something we have known for nearly a century. On the steppes of Ukraine, (now southern Russia), our ancestors led verbal, contractual, historical, tradition, focused on listening to testimony (story telling), possessing myths, but lacking authoritarian symbolism, idols, or mysticism. They were typical of the indo european people.
    2) With the unification of the horse, wheel, and bronze, these pig, sheep, and goat herders, turned to raiding and dropped the peaceful and cooperative mythology and adopted the aggressive warrior mythology. thus dividing the indo-european peoples. The heroic age was born. The other tribes responded by creating ‘religion’ from mythology as a *resistance movement*. Some groups later used religion as the first legal system, and then later, for greater ‘precision’ in homogenizing punishments and crimes, created more precise ‘law’.
    3) These conquerors spread in all directions, forced by tribal competition to adopt the new technologies just as all other military technologies have since been adopted out of necessity.
    4) Each of the three major branches, northern and western aryans (Europeans), southern aryans (Iranians), and eastern aryans(Indians), (we do not know what happened to those people in the far east yet other than that they appear to be gone), used the new technology to rule their own people, and if possible or necessary to gain good territory, to conquer and rule other peoples, and then extract taxation to pay for the high cost of bronze, horse, and wheel.
    5) This ruling caste succeeded in conquering everything within the european and asian plains from Asia to Spain, and as far south as Egypt.
    6) They used manorialism, and serfdom to cause upward redistribution of reproduction from the underclasses to the middle and upper classes – if we can somehow stretch the meaning of middle class back into those eras. And they used war, winters, taxation, and aggressive punishment to cull troublemakers – even enforcing late marriage. The consequence was a reduction in the ratio of the unproductive underclasses to the productive classes. We call this ‘domestication’ when we refer to plants and animals, but we call it ‘oppression’ when we do it to humans. But these people applied domestication to man with the same passion that they did to their herds.
    7) In those places where they were most successful because of less territorial competition (Europe), they maintained the contractualism between the peerage (aristocracy) and maintained egalitarian meritocracy(those who fight earned rights), and the prohibition on the concentration of power in any of them.
    8) The Greeks, Hittites, Romans, and Celts all practiced this same contractualism, sovereignty, heroic ethic, and aristocratic egalitarianism by merit. Conversely the fertile crescent did not since their chief problem was using propaganda to organize large populations in concert with the flood cycle. And by the time the Axial Age hit China, the aristocracy and peasantry were already formed, and ritual developed as a means of controlling the tendency of the aristocracy to exhaust production for their feasts. So they maintained authority, and the Crescent maintained authority. while the european branch of the aryans maintained contratualism meritoratic egalitarianism, and personal, heroic, sovereignty.
    9) When martial men, members of an initiatic brotherhood of warriors, whether normative, legal, or ritualistic, must negotiate they rely upon martial epistemology (empiricism) and hold to the sacredness of truth (testimony) and contract if for no other reason than in battle one can bear very high costs of error, optimism, betrayal and dishonesty. These men negotiate and argue their positions and the headman (general, chieftain, or king) judges and chooses from the different arguments presented. It is this testimonial, argumentative, debate, from which reason and eventually aristotelian ‘science’ takes it’s origins.
    10) The Romans adopted greek thinking, but not greek rhetoric since they thought it full of what we would consider to day ‘weasel words’ and so they favored ‘plain speech’. So they adopted stoic natural law as their inspiration, not greek politicized speech. Moving man closer to empiricism.
    11) There are only three ways of coercing man, and we evolved all three of them: religious inclusion or exclusion, legal punishment and liberty, credit consumption or deprivation. We can control people through religion, law, and credit. Religion is a loose method of control, law a precise but limited, and credit an individualistic method of control. But each also has different cost structure. Religion is cheap, law requires a tax structure to finance it, and credit requires elaborate institutions and high trust between credit issuers. The same is true for education: literacy is expensive, numbers more so, law more so, and philosophy even more so. So the combination of resisting the germanic migrations, the exhaustion of the slave economy, the Justinian plague, the loss of the north african grains to the muslims, and centuries of raiding against the mediterranean, the Agaean/Mediterranian civilization could not compete any more than the prior dark age could compete against the sea peoples who are most likely a migrating wave of our ancestors. So the church was able to govern, but only by imposing christianity by force, closing the stoic and greek schools, and allowing the empire to devolve into thousands of regional manors each defending what it could, with its own resources. Religion is cheap if imprecise government. The church ruled with literacy, and diplomacy, and superstition, where Rome had ruled with force, religious liberty, law, and credit.
    12) The Europeans try to resurrect Roman law once they rediscovered it. The Templars come along and develop the first system of international credit but the Pope, knowing his brother was deeply in debt to the Templars, framed them in the hope of rescuing his brother from the debt, and possibly claiming the Templar holdings for the church. However, the Pope didn’t understand banking: money is always at work or it is useless and he destroyed the Templars and banking, leaving the Jews – who unlike the Templars – were weak, to fill the void in the market for credit. But as we know now, there was no gold not working in Templar hands.
    13) About the same time two things occur: the British lawyer Bacon, arrived with his invention of empiricism – a novel invention over Aristotelian near-science. And the formation of the Hanseatic civilization we refer to by many names (Germanic, Protestant, Northern European), but was caused by the adoption by the Frisians of bipartite manorialism, which was the most eugenic economic system in the history of man. This spread throughout northern Europe, starting in about 700, and by 1200 had changed the genetics culture, and economy of what we think of as northern Europe. The Hansa bridged the mediterranean trade overland, and by sea, and the north sea then replaced the Aegean/mediterranean economy as the dominant economic force in Europe until the colonies were discovered, and like the alliance between Sparta(Germany), Athens (Britain) and Rome(America) the atlantic became the mediterranean of the ancient world. And the balance of power shifted from the Hansa to the west, while than Hansa continued to spread German genes, culture, and economy to the east. Each carrying with them the ancient aryan tradition of contractualism we think of as the tales of George Washington’s honesty here in America. A character more underrated in history than nearly any man but Bacon.
    14) When Jefferson put pen to paper he did not know that he almost succeeded in developing strictly constructed law from the first principle of the natural law of contractualism. Had he, we would have seen the birth of scientific government: natural, judge discovered, strictly constructed, operationally testable, common law. Had he done so the Enlightenment might have been completed. Not having done so we had to endure the French, Russian, German, and Cosmopolitan enlightenments, and like waves of disasters each caused catastrophic damage to the west. English empiricism was correct, but the theory of man as an oppressed potential aristocracy of everyone was false. French moralism was incorrect and merely an excuse to replace one set of rulers with another, creating the terrors, and ending France’s contribution to western civilization. The German reaction to Napolean destroyed the heart of Europe by unifying princedoms that preserved our martial and oath traditions. The cosmopolitan Enlightenment was terrified by the Darwinian an capitalist revolutions, and created the pseudosciences of Boazian anthropology, marxist economics and sociology, and freudian psychology, and Frankfurtian cultural critique – even Cantorian mathematical platonism. The Russian took the french and the german and the cosmopolitan (Jews) and created the horrors of bolshevism, trotskyism, and the soviets, and ended the Russian Enlightenment which prior, had been literary and orthodox, and made it pseudoscientific. This movement, threatened in europe moved to New York and was funded by Columbia University, resulting the adoption of these pseudosciences by the academy newly willing to sell them to new underclasses finally having access to education. Not knowing they were being taught the same deceitful resistance movement to aristocracy and truth using pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and fabricated history and cultural criticism that their ancestors had been taught as ‘religion’.
    15) At the beginning of the last century a group of thinkers understood that the world was being converted to a pseudoscientific religion of rebellion against the truth, to replace the prior era’s conversion to mysticism as a rebellion against the truth. These men unfortunately did not come to any consensus on how to solve the problem of the new mysticism masquerading as pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and mathematical platonism, Poincare raised the battle flag, then Mises in economics, Hayek in law, Popper in philosophy,
    WHAT MADE US THE WEST, SO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST?
    What made the west the west originated on the steppe, north and east of the black sea, where sometime after the great deluge, a group of people developed a purely empirical mind, absent the dreams and fantasies of the later ages. Throughout our history, a young man took an oath upon his maturity: “I shall not lie, or steal, or strike me dead.” This phrase in a thousand promises, a thousand oaths echoes through our history in every era.
    And this ‘testimony’ this ‘oath’ is the secret of the west: by the combination of oath, sacrifice (battle), truthful (empirical) testimony, jury of peers, an independent judiciary, the sacredness of that oath as the basis for natural, judge-discovered, common law, a people small in number, against much greater numbers, and much greater wealth will innovate, and adapt to change FASTER if not first, than all other civilizations known to man. We are not always first, but where we are not first we are fastest. Because of the oath. This is why we are the origin of more art and science than all civlization in history combined, despite our youth, and small numbers.
    Religions of some sort matter in every civilization. In any group of people. Rituals are required. Ceremonies, feasts, and celebrations. We must find some way to recreate the safety of the small tribe. To keep us one somehow. To invoke the pack response we call spiritualism (submission to the pack). To create bonds with those whom outside of religion we may even compete with. But it matters little what occurs in those religions other than that we come together to submit to one another, develop and preserve kinship love for one another – despite our lack of kinship.
    Our church did some valuable things: (a) attempted to maintain some semblance of order as the empire collapsed (b) attempted to preserve knowledge as ignorance expanded (c) forbid cousin marriage (in an effort to break up the lands of the great families so that they could be purchased more cheaply by the church), (d) managed what little resistance to the expansion of islam (e), and created an educated and literate cult of administration over the territories despite teaching nonsense to people, failing to educate them, and leaving them in darkness for nearly a thousand years.
    But given that the church mythology was constructed from a combination of those same ancient myths, not the least of which was Mithraism of the soldiery, there is very little within the church’s teachings that did not exist prior to it. And there is much if not more bad done by the the church as good. And the pope’s current campaign in favor of the third world at the expense of the first, is just the most recent example of preserving the institution instead of reforming it.
    We no longer need governance by religion, only ritual, festival, ceremony and perhaps education. We do need governance by law. If only because it is more precise providing more clarity in decidability in a greater range of contexts. But the whole world is rebelling against it despite its incomprehensibiity of cause allows decadence, and against the decadent predation of governance by credit which favors a few at the expense of the many, no longer serves the family, tribe, and nation, and is no longer eugenic, but dysgenic on a scale we have never seen before in human history – a price future generations will pay for as much as the dark ages did, because as the marginal differences in knowledge and production are eradicated by global trade and communication. The favelas and slums will be unable to change, because there is no method of using incentives voluntarily organizing production of large numbers of underclasses with the productive capacity of any upper and middle class. The third world will no longer starve, but it will remain poor. There are many kinds of dark ages. And we are just as likely to enter one as exit the current crisis.
    There is plenty in our history to worship, to celebrate, to feast over, to ritualize, and to ceremonialize. We can Love Jesus truthfully as a philosopher, or untruthfully as a prophet. We can love our western god as a wise father, rather than feign submission to the Jewish imitation of an Egyptian one. We can pray for wisdom to not only our gods and saints, but our scientists, philosophers, artists, craftsmen, warriors, and wise men. We can celebrate life rather than fear death. We can celebrate nature rather than heaven. We can revel in our defeats of the great darknesses of time, ignorance, poverty, disease and suffering. We can learn our great history of truth telling, and honor, the skills of parenting, the skills of life, the skills of civic duty – and our skills of war.
    Because that would be telling the truth to one another.
    And that’s what it means to be ‘western’.
    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
    (Repost from Aug 22, 2016 5:29pm)

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-28 19:06:48 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1784660556680442100

  • (~2500 Words) 1) The origins of the uniqueness of western civilization are somet

    (~2500 Words)

    1) The origins of the uniqueness of western civilization are something we have known for nearly a century. On the steppes of Ukraine, (now southern Russia), our ancestors led verbal, contractual, historical, tradition, focused on listening to testimony (story telling), possessing myths, but lacking authoritarian symbolism, idols, or mysticism. They were typical of the indo european people.

    2) With the unification of the horse, wheel, and bronze, these pig, sheep, and goat herders, turned to raiding and dropped the peaceful and cooperative mythology and adopted the aggressive warrior mythology. thus dividing the indo-european peoples. The heroic age was born. The other tribes responded by creating ‘religion’ from mythology as a *resistance movement*. Some groups later used religion as the first legal system, and then later, for greater ‘precision’ in homogenizing punishments and crimes, created more precise ‘law’.

    3) These conquerors spread in all directions, forced by tribal competition to adopt the new technologies just as all other military technologies have since been adopted out of necessity.

    4) Each of the three major branches, northern and western aryans (Europeans), southern aryans (Iranians), and eastern aryans(Indians), (we do not know what happened to those people in the far east yet other than that they appear to be gone), used the new technology to rule their own people, and if possible or necessary to gain good territory, to conquer and rule other peoples, and then extract taxation to pay for the high cost of bronze, horse, and wheel.

    5) This ruling caste succeeded in conquering everything within the european and asian plains from Asia to Spain, and as far south as Egypt.

    6) They used manorialism, and serfdom to cause upward redistribution of reproduction from the underclasses to the middle and upper classes – if we can somehow stretch the meaning of middle class back into those eras. And they used war, winters, taxation, and aggressive punishment to cull troublemakers – even enforcing late marriage. The consequence was a reduction in the ratio of the unproductive underclasses to the productive classes. We call this ‘domestication’ when we refer to plants and animals, but we call it ‘oppression’ when we do it to humans. But these people applied domestication to man with the same passion that they did to their herds.

    7) In those places where they were most successful because of less territorial competition (Europe), they maintained the contractualism between the peerage (aristocracy) and maintained egalitarian meritocracy(those who fight earned rights), and the prohibition on the concentration of power in any of them.

    8) The Greeks, Hittites, Romans, and Celts all practiced this same contractualism, sovereignty, heroic ethic, and aristocratic egalitarianism by merit. Conversely the fertile crescent did not since their chief problem was using propaganda to organize large populations in concert with the flood cycle. And by the time the Axial Age hit China, the aristocracy and peasantry were already formed, and ritual developed as a means of controlling the tendency of the aristocracy to exhaust production for their feasts. So they maintained authority, and the Crescent maintained authority. while the european branch of the aryans maintained contratualism meritoratic egalitarianism, and personal, heroic, sovereignty.

    9) When martial men, members of an initiatic brotherhood of warriors, whether normative, legal, or ritualistic, must negotiate they rely upon martial epistemology (empiricism) and hold to the sacredness of truth (testimony) and contract if for no other reason than in battle one can bear very high costs of error, optimism, betrayal and dishonesty. These men negotiate and argue their positions and the headman (general, chieftain, or king) judges and chooses from the different arguments presented. It is this testimonial, argumentative, debate, from which reason and eventually aristotelian ‘science’ takes it’s origins.

    10) The Romans adopted greek thinking, but not greek rhetoric since they thought it full of what we would consider to day ‘weasel words’ and so they favored ‘plain speech’. So they adopted stoic natural law as their inspiration, not greek politicized speech. Moving man closer to empiricism.

    11) There are only three ways of coercing man, and we evolved all three of them: religious inclusion or exclusion, legal punishment and liberty, credit consumption or deprivation. We can control people through religion, law, and credit. Religion is a loose method of control, law a precise but limited, and credit an individualistic method of control. But each also has different cost structure. Religion is cheap, law requires a tax structure to finance it, and credit requires elaborate institutions and high trust between credit issuers. The same is true for education: literacy is expensive, numbers more so, law more so, and philosophy even more so. So the combination of resisting the germanic migrations, the exhaustion of the slave economy, the Justinian plague, the loss of the north african grains to the muslims, and centuries of raiding against the mediterranean, the Agaean/Mediterranian civilization could not compete any more than the prior dark age could compete against the sea peoples who are most likely a migrating wave of our ancestors. So the church was able to govern, but only by imposing christianity by force, closing the stoic and greek schools, and allowing the empire to devolve into thousands of regional manors each defending what it could, with its own resources. Religion is cheap if imprecise government. The church ruled with literacy, and diplomacy, and superstition, where Rome had ruled with force, religious liberty, law, and credit.

    12) The Europeans try to resurrect Roman law once they rediscovered it. The Templars come along and develop the first system of international credit but the Pope, knowing his brother was deeply in debt to the Templars, framed them in the hope of rescuing his brother from the debt, and possibly claiming the Templar holdings for the church. However, the Pope didn’t understand banking: money is always at work or it is useless and he destroyed the Templars and banking, leaving the Jews – who unlike the Templars – were weak, to fill the void in the market for credit. But as we know now, there was no gold not working in Templar hands.

    13) About the same time two things occur: the British lawyer Bacon, arrived with his invention of empiricism – a novel invention over Aristotelian near-science. And the formation of the Hanseatic civilization we refer to by many names (Germanic, Protestant, Northern European), but was caused by the adoption by the Frisians of bipartite manorialism, which was the most eugenic economic system in the history of man. This spread throughout northern Europe, starting in about 700, and by 1200 had changed the genetics culture, and economy of what we think of as northern Europe. The Hansa bridged the mediterranean trade overland, and by sea, and the north sea then replaced the Aegean/mediterranean economy as the dominant economic force in Europe until the colonies were discovered, and like the alliance between Sparta(Germany), Athens (Britain) and Rome(America) the atlantic became the mediterranean of the ancient world. And the balance of power shifted from the Hansa to the west, while than Hansa continued to spread German genes, culture, and economy to the east. Each carrying with them the ancient aryan tradition of contractualism we think of as the tales of George Washington’s honesty here in America. A character more underrated in history than nearly any man but Bacon.

    14) When Jefferson put pen to paper he did not know that he almost succeeded in developing strictly constructed law from the first principle of the natural law of contractualism. Had he, we would have seen the birth of scientific government: natural, judge discovered, strictly constructed, operationally testable, common law. Had he done so the Enlightenment might have been completed. Not having done so we had to endure the French, Russian, German, and Cosmopolitan enlightenments, and like waves of disasters each caused catastrophic damage to the west. English empiricism was correct, but the theory of man as an oppressed potential aristocracy of everyone was false. French moralism was incorrect and merely an excuse to replace one set of rulers with another, creating the terrors, and ending France’s contribution to western civilization. The German reaction to Napolean destroyed the heart of Europe by unifying princedoms that preserved our martial and oath traditions. The cosmopolitan Enlightenment was terrified by the Darwinian an capitalist revolutions, and created the pseudosciences of Boazian anthropology, marxist economics and sociology, and freudian psychology, and Frankfurtian cultural critique – even Cantorian mathematical platonism. The Russian took the french and the german and the cosmopolitan (Jews) and created the horrors of bolshevism, trotskyism, and the soviets, and ended the Russian Enlightenment which prior, had been literary and orthodox, and made it pseudoscientific. This movement, threatened in europe moved to New York and was funded by Columbia University, resulting the adoption of these pseudosciences by the academy newly willing to sell them to new underclasses finally having access to education. Not knowing they were being taught the same deceitful resistance movement to aristocracy and truth using pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and fabricated history and cultural criticism that their ancestors had been taught as ‘religion’.

    15) At the beginning of the last century a group of thinkers understood that the world was being converted to a pseudoscientific religion of rebellion against the truth, to replace the prior era’s conversion to mysticism as a rebellion against the truth. These men unfortunately did not come to any consensus on how to solve the problem of the new mysticism masquerading as pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and mathematical platonism, Poincare raised the battle flag, then Mises in economics, Hayek in law, Popper in philosophy,

    WHAT MADE US THE WEST, SO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST?

    What made the west the west originated on the steppe, north and east of the black sea, where sometime after the great deluge, a group of people developed a purely empirical mind, absent the dreams and fantasies of the later ages. Throughout our history, a young man took an oath upon his maturity: “I shall not lie, or steal, or strike me dead.” This phrase in a thousand promises, a thousand oaths echoes through our history in every era.

    And this ‘testimony’ this ‘oath’ is the secret of the west: by the combination of oath, sacrifice (battle), truthful (empirical) testimony, jury of peers, an independent judiciary, the sacredness of that oath as the basis for natural, judge-discovered, common law, a people small in number, against much greater numbers, and much greater wealth will innovate, and adapt to change FASTER if not first, than all other civilizations known to man. We are not always first, but where we are not first we are fastest. Because of the oath. This is why we are the origin of more art and science than all civlization in history combined, despite our youth, and small numbers.

    Religions of some sort matter in every civilization. In any group of people. Rituals are required. Ceremonies, feasts, and celebrations. We must find some way to recreate the safety of the small tribe. To keep us one somehow. To invoke the pack response we call spiritualism (submission to the pack). To create bonds with those whom outside of religion we may even compete with. But it matters little what occurs in those religions other than that we come together to submit to one another, develop and preserve kinship love for one another – despite our lack of kinship.

    Our church did some valuable things: (a) attempted to maintain some semblance of order as the empire collapsed (b) attempted to preserve knowledge as ignorance expanded (c) forbid cousin marriage (in an effort to break up the lands of the great families so that they could be purchased more cheaply by the church), (d) managed what little resistance to the expansion of islam (e), and created an educated and literate cult of administration over the territories despite teaching nonsense to people, failing to educate them, and leaving them in darkness for nearly a thousand years.

    But given that the church mythology was constructed from a combination of those same ancient myths, not the least of which was Mithraism of the soldiery, there is very little within the church’s teachings that did not exist prior to it. And there is much if not more bad done by the the church as good. And the pope’s current campaign in favor of the third world at the expense of the first, is just the most recent example of preserving the institution instead of reforming it.

    We no longer need governance by religion, only ritual, festival, ceremony and perhaps education. We do need governance by law. If only because it is more precise providing more clarity in decidability in a greater range of contexts. But the whole world is rebelling against it despite its incomprehensibiity of cause allows decadence, and against the decadent predation of governance by credit which favors a few at the expense of the many, no longer serves the family, tribe, and nation, and is no longer eugenic, but dysgenic on a scale we have never seen before in human history – a price future generations will pay for as much as the dark ages did, because as the marginal differences in knowledge and production are eradicated by global trade and communication. The favelas and slums will be unable to change, because there is no method of using incentives voluntarily organizing production of large numbers of underclasses with the productive capacity of any upper and middle class. The third world will no longer starve, but it will remain poor. There are many kinds of dark ages. And we are just as likely to enter one as exit the current crisis.

    There is plenty in our history to worship, to celebrate, to feast over, to ritualize, and to ceremonialize. We can Love Jesus truthfully as a philosopher, or untruthfully as a prophet. We can love our western god as a wise father, rather than feign submission to the Jewish imitation of an Egyptian one. We can pray for wisdom to not only our gods and saints, but our scientists, philosophers, artists, craftsmen, warriors, and wise men. We can celebrate life rather than fear death. We can celebrate nature rather than heaven. We can revel in our defeats of the great darknesses of time, ignorance, poverty, disease and suffering. We can learn our great history of truth telling, and honor, the skills of parenting, the skills of life, the skills of civic duty – and our skills of war.

    Because that would be telling the truth to one another.

    And that’s what it means to be ‘western’.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    (Repost from Aug 22, 2016 5:29pm)

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-28 18:08:04 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1784645774237708289

  • THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHRISTIAN DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT W

    THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHRISTIAN DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

    –“Curt: Q: Could you please elaborate on “Christianity only moderated because it was germanized out of necessity, then captured by the aristocracy as a holding company for land.”–

    Sure. 😉

    The Germanization of Christianity was not a mutual adaptation or synthesis but rather as a form of cultural and religious colonization or conquest, where the spread of Christianity led to the displacement, transformation, or outright suppression of native European religions, religious disciplines, and philosophical traditions.

    This viewpoint suggests that the adoption of Christianity by European cultures, including Germanic ones, resulted in the loss of indigenous religious practices, deities, and philosophical insights that were deeply rooted in the natural world and human experience prior to Christian influence.

    Let’s elaborate:

    Germanization
    – Metaphysics: The encounter between Christianity and Germanic culture resulted in a profound transformation of the religion itself, one that adapted it to the values, worldview, and social structures of the Germanic peoples.
    The result was a shift from the world-rejecting, universalist, and soteriological orientation of early Christianity to a more world-accepting, folk-centered, and heroic ethos that resonated with Germanic sensibilities.
    This shift was a “metaphysical” reorientation, in the sense that it involved a fundamental recalibration of the relationship between the human and the divine, the temporal and the eternal, the individual and the community.

    – The Saints and Social Order: the emergence of the cult of saints, which can be seen as a way of adapting the Christian notion of divine intercession to the Germanic emphasis on heroic figures and powerful patrons. By venerating saints as intermediaries between the earthly and the heavenly realms, Germanic Christianity created a new kind of sacred hierarchy that mirrored the structure of Germanic society itself.

    – Kingship and the Sacred Duty: Sacral kingship, in which the monarch was seen as a divinely ordained ruler with a sacred duty to protect and lead his people, can be understood as a fusion of Christian and Germanic concepts of authority and legitimacy. This fusion helped to create a new model of political order that would shape the development of medieval Europe for centuries to come.

    – Proprietary Churches and Aristocratic Capture: Proprietary churches, in which local lords and landowners exercised control over religious institutions and appointments, can also be seen as a reflection of the Germanic emphasis on personal loyalty and patronage networks. By embedding the church within the fabric of feudal society, the Germanization of Christianity helped to create a new kind of religious and social order that was deeply intertwined with the structures of power and privilege.

    – Heroic Aryanism: the emergence of a dramatic-representational liturgical form, as exemplified by the Gothic cathedral, can be understood as an aesthetic expression of the new Germanic Christianity, one that emphasized grandeur, mystery, and emotional intensity over the more restrained and intellectual style of earlier Christian worship.

    – Reversal of Christian Values: From the feminine, slave submissive to the aristocratic duty to polity and community.

    How Christianity Adapted in Europe

    – Cultural differences: Christianity, rooted in Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, had to adapt its message and practices to appeal to the diverse cultures of Europe, such as the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples, each with their own established religious traditions.

    – Syncretism: To facilitate conversion, Christian missionaries often incorporated elements of local religious practices and beliefs into Christian worship, such as repurposing pagan festivals as Christian holy days or associating Christian saints with pre-existing deities and their attributes.

    – Political alliances: The Church sought the support of secular rulers, offering legitimacy and spiritual authority in exchange for protection and promotion of the faith. The conversion of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century was a turning point in this regard, paving the way for Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

    – Forced conversion: While some conversions were voluntary, others were coerced through political pressure, economic incentives, or outright violence. Charlemagne’s forcible conversion of the Saxons in the 8th century is a notable example.

    – Monastic movement: The establishment of monasteries played a crucial role in the spread of Christianity, as they served as centers of learning, literacy, and cultural preservation in the often chaotic centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

    – Aristocratic control: As Christianity became more institutionalized, wealthy and powerful families sought to control church offices and lands. This led to the practice of simony (selling church positions) and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few influential families, often intertwined with the aristocracy.

    – Doctrinal disputes: As Christianity spread, it also diversified, leading to theological controversies and schisms, such as the Arian heresy and the East-West Schism of 1054. These disputes sometimes reflected political and cultural divisions as much as religious ones.

    – Persecution: Despite eventually becoming the dominant religion in Europe, Christians still faced periodic persecution, particularly during the early centuries of the Church’s existence. This experience of persecution became an important part of Christian self-identity and rhetoric.

    In this sense, while Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity as a “slave religion” that undermined the vitality and nobility of European culture has merit, but a bit of an oversimplification that fails to account for the ways in which Christianity itself was transformed and revitalized through its encounter with Germanic culture.

    The Germanization of Christianity, in other words, can be seen not just as a capitulation to the values of the “slave revolt in morality,” but also as a kind of “transvaluation” of those values, one that infused them with the european values of heroism, worldliness, and cultural particularity.

    Violence, Destruction and Decline
    – Destruction of pagan temples: Christian zealots, often with the support of emperors and bishops, demolished or desecrated numerous pagan temples across the Roman Empire.

    – Smashing of statues: Many classical statues, seen as idols by Christians, were deliberately smashed, defaced, or melted down for their valuable materials.

    – Burning of books: Christian authorities burned pagan books and entire libraries, viewing them as dangerous and heretical. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria is one famous example.

    – Forced closure of philosophical schools: Christian emperors issued edicts that led to the closure of renowned centers of learning, such as the Platonic Academy in Athens, which had operated for centuries.

    – Suppression of pagan festivals and traditions: Christians actively suppressed longstanding pagan festivals, religious practices, and cultural traditions, often with the use of force.

    – Intolerance and violence: Early Christians, particularly once they gained political power, exhibited a high degree of intolerance and resorted to violence against pagans and heterodox Christians.

    – Anti-intellectualism: Many influential Christian thinkers, such as Tertullian and Augustine, promoted an anti-intellectual strain that devalued or was hostile to classical learning and philosophy.

    – Destruction of classical heritage: Taken together, these actions by Christians resulted in the irretrievable loss of countless works of art, literature, and knowledge from the classical world.

    Loss of Indigenous European Religions
    – Suppression of Pagan Practices: The spread of Christianity often involved the deliberate suppression of pagan religions. Sacred groves, temples, and idols were destroyed, and pagan practices were outlawed or reinterpreted within a Christian framework. This led to the erosion of traditional religious practices and the loss of cultural diversity. Most importantly, disconnection from nature, reality, and the behavioral complexity of man.

    – Demotion of Native Deities: Native deities were either demonized as malevolent forces or diminished to the status of saints or folklore characters. This not only altered the religious landscape but also severed cultural and spiritual connections to ancestral traditions and the natural world.

    – Transformation of Religious Discipline and Philosophy
    Shift in Worldview: Pre-Christian European religions and philosophies, as seen in the Epic Cycle and Stoicism, often emphasized virtue, personal and communal ethics, and a deep connection to nature and fate. The introduction of Christianity shifted the focus towards salvation, sin, and an omnipotent deity, which represented a fundamental change in existential and ethical orientation.

    – Loss of Philosophical Heritage: The rich philosophical traditions that predated or existed outside of Christianity, characterized by inquiry and debate on ethics, metaphysics, and the nature of the human soul, were often overshadowed or absorbed into Christian theology. While some Stoic and Platonic ideas were integrated into Christian thought, the distinctiveness of these and other schools of thought was largely subsumed under Christian doctrine.

    Cultural and Intellectual Consequences
    – Monopolization of Intellectual Life: The Christian Church eventually dominated educational and scholarly institutions, determining what was permissible to study or believe. This centralized control could stifle intellectual diversity and innovation by marginalizing or condemning non-Christian or heterodox thoughts.

    Intellectual repression: The Church sometimes stifled scientific and philosophical inquiry, particularly when it challenged orthodox doctrines. The Galileo affair is a well-known example.

    – Redefinition of Morality and Ethics: The moral and ethical systems of indigenous European religions, which were closely tied to community, kinship, and the rhythms of the natural world, were replaced by a Christian moral code that often emphasized obedience to divine authority and the Church’s teachings.

    – Intolerance and persecution: Christian authorities often suppressed or persecuted religious minorities, heretics, and non-believers, such as during the Spanish Inquisition or the witch trials of the early modern period.

    – Justification of oppression: Christian teachings were sometimes used to justify slavery, colonialism, and the subjugation of women and minority groups.

    – Political and economic corruption: The wealth and power of the Church often led to corruption, simony, and the exploitation of the lower classes. The sale of indulgences, which helped spark the Protestant Reformation, is a prime example.

    – Ushering in the “Dark Ages”: The cumulative effect of this Christian destruction was to bring about the cultural and intellectual decline of Western Europe in the centuries following the fall of Rome, a period often referred to as the “Dark Ages.”

    Thus mourning the loss of what might have been a more diverse, pluralistic spiritual landscape, suggesting that the spread of Christianity came at the cost of native European religious traditions and philosophies that had their own intrinsic value and could have offered alternative paths for European cultural and intellectual development.

    This is a draft that could be both expanded and clarified, but it should serve the purpose of explaining the ‘germanization of christianity’ so to speak.

    Also See:
    1) Holding Company: https://t.co/bwfhida5pT
    2) Germanization:
    https://t.co/dHLq4ALKtC
    https://t.co/f418Hqjvg7

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515

    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-31 00:59:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774240162886684672

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773705762507743260