Form: Full Essay

(second draft)(important piece) [P]ropaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response. The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We MUST rely upon intuition – we have no other choice. The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from Marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to Freudian Psychology, to Keynesian economics, the Anthropology of Franz Boas, to the outright fabrications of the Frankfurt School, to the postmodern philosophers, to American Feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of Critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media. These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘Critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means. In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons. We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgement on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’. THE MIRACLE OF THE WEST: TRUTH TELLING  [T]he rise of the west is due to a single accident: we discovered truth telling. We are the only people who discovered it, and paid the high cost to establish it as a commons – as normative infrastructure – in manners, ethics, morality, law, philosophy and science. And so it is truth telling that separates the west from the rest. All western excellences are the consequential result of truth telling. The ‘killer apps’ of western civilization are the product of a single technology: truth telling. Today, if not throughout history, we see science as physically constrained and separate from social and moral and spiritual subjects. But science is just the art of truth telling. And it is less ‘troublesome’ to speak the truth about the physical world than it is about human affairs. So science tried to constrain itself to those areas, except where brave souls like Aristotle, Livy, Machiavelli, Smith and Hume, and most importantly Darwin. The syntopical historians Toynbee, Durant, Quigley, Huntington, Mallory, Keegan, and intellectual historians Duchesne, and Hicks. The social scientists: Weber, Pareto, Michels and Duheim. And today’s cognitive scientists, and experimental psychologists: Searle, Pinker, Khanemann, and Haidt. But these empirical souls cold not compete with the propagandists who tried to unseat them. From Freud’s attempt to obscure Nietzche using pseudoscience. To the psychologizing of the postmodernists. From Boaz’s pseudoscinece in an attempt to obscure Darwin. From Keynes’s use of psudoscience to obscure the empiricists and moral “conservative” economists, through today’s combination of Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz and their allies who advocate ‘immoral economics’ if consumption is maintained, even if consumption could be maintain in exchange for moral reforms of immoral bureaucracies, tax evasion, and unproductive working hours. The German Rationalists, the Jewish Cosmopolitans, the Anglo Neo-Puritans, all seek to create a new authoritarianism justifying their control of society, The Indo-Europeans, the Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Norse, and British, sought to control society with truth, property, law, and jury. The British nearly perfected the technique – evolving the common, organic, law of property rights, through trial and error, and a means of voluntary exchange between the classes by using multiple houses of government. But the truth without authority frightens people who do not live on islands, and do not have control of their domains. How could the Germans maintain unity in the absence of church authority? How could the Jews maintain unity in the absence of dual-standard-ethics and a contravention of their separatist morality? How could the Anglo Neo-Puritans maintain status and power, and ensure they wouldn’t be outnumbered without the imposition of their ideology by force? It is one thing to use propaganda to make the world safe for jews by advocating diversity so that they can maintain a separatist and often parasitic, dual-ethic, society inside host societies – it is a necessary strategy for them even if damaging to host societies. It is another thing for northeastern american puritans to justify their conquest of territories. It is another thing for germans to try to conflate morality, truth, and duty so that they can maintain their stoic, paternal society. But of these the damage has been done most severely by the american use of altruistic punishment and moral justification for violence, and even more so by the jewish use of their main skill: propaganda, pseudoscience, and deceit – the germans merely armed the Jewish socialists, neocons, and libertines, and the anglo Neo-puritans. The actual damage done by the germans themselves was relatively limited. They were merely conquered and have been held from ruling Europe for two generations by American dominance – a period which is coming to an end. The damage done by the anglo ideology is currently self-correcting via post 1990 science (my generation), and the collapse of the postwar-mythos along with the rise of world consumer capitalism eliminating american military advantage. The damage done by the jewish propagandists is probably irreversible, and unless we break up the continent into smaller regional states, we face becoming another ‘brazil’, thanks to the jewish destruction of history, philosophy, truth telling, law, ethics, morality, and science by successfully manipulating the neo-puritans, and mobilizing women sufficiently to follow their socialistic reproductive strategies – at the expense of the family. (See Kevin Macdonald’s work on Critique) We see today the perfect culmination of Anglo imperial militarism, and Jewish propaganda, in Putin’s combination of multiple strains of propaganda, each of which appeals to the same moral bias, but cumulatively is self contradictory. (Google Yale University’s Timothy Snyder). WHAT DO WE DO? [W]e can restore truth quite easily. We can restore the greatest mistake in history: a right to free speech, versus a right to truthful speech. But to require truthful speech requires that we possess a logical, rational, and scientific means of determining just what constitutes truthful speech. And we have been missing this particular logical system: the logic of morality, for 2500 years. The reason why we have missed it, escapes me at present – although I am sure I will uncover it with time. **That single bit of logic is that the only possible moral rule is the total prohibition on the imposition of costs – or conversely – the right of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality.** Science has developed the art of speaking truthfully over centuries. However, the one truthful proposition that they have avoided is morality. The right of productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, is sufficient for a first-principle of all political discourse. The consequence of this single rule, is that political action must be constructed out of exchanges, rather than ‘collective goods’. Science currently warranties speech by requiring the following tests, that demonstrate we are not adding imaginary or allegorical content, to our statements:

1) External Correspondence (we can observe the phenomenon) 2) Internal Consistency (logical) 2.1) Identity : The Logic of Naming 2.2) Mathematics: The logic of relations 2.3) Physics: the logic of causation 2.4) Logic: the logic of language 3) Operationally defined (existentially possible) 4) Falsified (parsimonious) But, we can also add to science, the additional logical constraint, that in the social sphere, one’s argument is free of involuntary transfer (involuntarily imposed costs), by requiring that it is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of external imposed costs (externalities). As such we can add to scientific testimony the requirement:

5) Ethical and Moral.(Free of involuntary transfer) and 2.5) Morality: the logic of Cooperation If we add this constraint to scientific inquiry then there is no difference whatsoever between the physical and social domains of inquiry. There is no difference between science, philosophy, morality and law. The disciples are identical. We can say that something that is “unscientific” is therefore not ‘truthful’. And we may never know if we speak the truth, but we **can** warranty that we have performed sufficient due diligence that we speak truthfully. That is the best we can do, and in practice, the best we can do is the difference between the west and the rest, so it is certainly good enough. Therefore: 1) We can restore the greatest mistake in history by requiring all public speech to be warrantied, and granting universal standing to all citizens in court for the defense of the informational commons, and imposting restitution for accidental damage; and triple restitution as damages for intentional deception; and add triple damages for deception in court. This increasing expense is important since the production of truth is expensive, and the production of deceit is cheap. The only possible means of providing an incentive to produce truthful statements, is to raise the cost of deceit so that it is higher than the high cost of telling the truth. (Our current legal system has evolved to produce perverse incentives: to lie.) 2) We can restore the second greatest mistake in history: intentionally enforced ignorance: privatize our school systems with 100% free choice. Restore the teaching of grammar, rhetoric, manners, ethics(morality), logic, reason, the scientific method, the art of witness and testimony, rule of law under property rights and the organic evolution of law. In addition there is no reason we do not teach the counting of money, balancing checkbooks, banking and interest, basic managerial accounting, basic financial accounting and micro-economics to every student from sixth to 12th grade. It is far easier to teach than algebra, geometry and calculus, and demonstrably more important. This curriculum will teach the students truth, truth telling, and voluntary cooperation, not spend their time trying to justify the fallacy of majoritarianism and political power – justifying majority tyranny. 3) We can restore the third greatest mistake in history: the accidental construction of a state mandated religion advocating falsehoods: the university system and democratic secular socialism. This requires little other than requiring that all universities operate upon credit to students, collected from the future earnings of students as payroll levies, and then the elimination of all state-university policies, returning the university to the service of industry not the state bureaucracy. This will bankrupt departments that are demonstrably harmful and produce negative results in for graduates (mostly social work, which harms your income potential). 4) We can restore the fourth greatest mistake in history: the permission of the government to construct law, rather than to construct contract. Under the one rule of morality, the state may facilitate the negotiation of contracts for the purpose of constructing commons, but may not issue commands for other than the conduct of declared war. This leaves the courts the only possible means of constructing law, by discovering innovations in involuntary transfer, and constructing law to suppress new involuntary transfers, which then can be used as legal ‘theory’ until heard by the highest court. However, all laws are theoretical, and open to revision, at any time, if the original purpose of suppressing involuntary transfers no longer stands, and what law remains is merely an unnecessary cost to citizens. But for this system to remain logically integral, the law must state the original intent, stating the means of involuntary transfer it wishes to suppress, and then be constructed from first principles, to fulfill that intent. (The combination of positive assertion and negative prohibition, under strict construction is necessary to prevent expansion of discretion without specific declaration of the means of expansion.) 5) We can restore the fifth greatest mistake in history: that while law must be constructed for individuals, commons must be constructed for families. Consumption serves reproduction, or it serves only hedonistic purposes. Any and all civilizations who reward dysgenic reproduction of the lower classes or dysgenic consumption of the upper classes, merely consume the combined sacrifices and savings of prior generations, violating the contract with prior generations, and eliminating the incentive to produce a civilization. The west has been organized to care for the incompetent, and produce offspring of the competent. The alternative is the current trend of dysgenic reproduction and damage to the world ecosystem – our necessary means of production. 6) We can restore the sixth greatest mistake in history – one that is counter-intuitive: the civil society (individual ownership and accountability for the commons). We have at present 1 lawyer for every 300 people in the United States. I submit that this is half the required number of lawyers, that the standard of passing the bar should be raised, and truth-telling, witness, and testimony, be added to the requirements for the bar. And in addition:

• 6.1) That we demilitarize the police: The Sheriff be elected, and have passed the bar. Local police shall be under control of the Sheriff. That the Sheriff. That all employment as a deputy is at will. And that deputies are prohibited from That any man having performed military service may serve as deputy. And that the Sheriff shall rely upon volunteers (like the volunteer fire departments do), rather than a full compliment of permanent staff. That restitution should be instituted in all cases of harm, and in cases of fines, all such fines directed to the service of the poor, not the general fund or the office of the sheriff. That all volunteers, having served at least three years, may act as deputies at any time, and use command and violence if necessary to organize all available males to stop a property crime until a sheriff or deputy arrives. This alone will restore the civic society, by making males both understand morality and law, and take ownership of society.
• 6.2) Banking be professionalized and all those who issue credit on behalf of another (not their personal money) be required to pass the bar. And that the financial performance of any lender’s loans be measured and as readily available as any individual’s credit rating. Accounting and banking are a trivial technology compared to law and reallocation of employment will repopulate the current banking sector with superior individuals, who command higher salaries, and who, if they lose their ‘ticket’ will be irreparably harmed. 
• 6.3) Restore accountability to all individuals in an organization, and the total loss of insulation from responsibility for any act of involuntary transfer. The requirement for all individuals who handle money to be insured, and that the insurer warrants that these individuals understand and can perform truth telling, witness and testimony when called upon. This will restore morality to business and industry within three years. 
• 6.3) Grant universal standing for all commons, so that activist can bypass the (corrupt) state and go directly to the courts in those cases where the commons is harmed. This will require clarification of the law, and registration of each commons, and for each commons enumerating terms of “usus, fructus, macipio and abusus”. Any use of the commons must be insured, so that the insurer and the user bear the cost of enforcement. No individual in any organization is insulated from violations of the commons. This will have to be implemented over six years, since current abusers cannot rationally adapt faster than this. (Some law on the use of commons is also still not settled.)

7) Reform Keynesian economics.

• 7.1) Bypass the financial system, because the distribution of liquidity through the banks, as if we are still in an era of hard currency, is no longer necessary. Have the treasury acquire a majority interest the (worst) credit card company, Mastercard, Issue a new card to every social security card number. Distribute all liquidity equally to all card holders, and cause business, industry, and finance to compete for it, rather than cause consumers to act as slaves to interest that is questionably ethical in the first place. If this money is distributed equally, upper bracket holders can pay down taxes with it. It will also cause increase resistance to immigration of the lower classes. The liquidity must be formulaic (“rule based”) and non-discretionary, so it is free of the political sphere. This will also mean that de-facto citizenship is participation in this credit and without it no one can obtain such services. 
• 7.2) (Saving and retirement)
• 7.3) (Compensation for constructing, maintaining, and policing the commons)
• 7.X) (Not ready for discussion yet)

8) Limited Reform of Taxation: Eliminate corporate taxation on dividends, while preserving it on capital gains, and on retained earnings. Tax all dividends as regular income at personal income rates. Accelerate depreciation of all assets to current liquidation prices. 9) Reform of Majority Rule Government: restore cooperation between the classes.

• 9.1) Defense(military), Law(dispute resolution)(the courts), Insurance(of last resort), Commons(government). Caretaking(church) must function as independent institutions.
• 9.1) (not ready for discussion yet)

REFORMING FUKUYAMA’S THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY [T]his constantly adapting “self-organizing” solution is contrary to Fukuyama’s advocacy of a ‘professional bureaucracy’ in the Chinese model as the ‘end of history’ – not the least of which is because bureaucracy always produces stagnation, predation and poverty. Instead, this solution advocates the historical western model, in which the government is in fact, a private sector institution (a wholly owned corporation) analogous to a shopping mall, and the different groups within that corporation that we call ‘the private sector’ produces constant innovation, and is constantly replaced by generations of creative destruction, requiring constant political innovation, but constant innovation that requires the state only to act as observer and judge, not director, manager, or administrator. The reason being that the bureaucratic state is a monopoly that cannot be revised by competition – only by failure and revolution. The state as a judiciary, the monarchy as a final arbiter, the government as a producer of voluntary commons, all force constant adaptation to circumstance, and constant reorganization of the family, and the state, to reflect the technology available to the voluntary organization of production upon which our prosperity depends. Self interests among the monarchs preserves the long term concerns over short term consumptions. The west innovated faster because there is a minimum delta between an innovation, and the prevention of parasitism in both private and public sectors that can be placed upon it. Organic common law reacts as soon as an involuntary transfer is performed. The performance of the west is largely the result of the private sector innovating faster than the government can construct rents upon it. The anglo model was the most successful at preventing rents, by creating a means of constructing trades between the classes, by class-based institutions that we call ‘houses of government’. Fukuyama, despite his study of trust, cannot seem to imagine the importance of truth telling – a victim of genetic, cultural, and consensus bias I assume. Fukuyama errors, just as did Confucius, in failing to grasp that consensus is meaningless, management is meaningless, only truth telling and sovereignty separates the west from the rest. And that all our unique institutions, and our dramatic performance, are attributable to our having solve the problem of politics: sovereignty, truth telling, property rights, and jury. A solution neither Confucius, nor the Chinese bureaucracy – nor any other civilization – managed to solve. The fact that the Chinese created the state first, but did not discover truth, and despite being wealthier, more isolated, and more prosperous, repeatedly failed to discover a solution to the problem of politics. Unfortunately for the west, the French revolution reversed the gains of the English revolution and its implementation of empirical government. And it was the french rational-totalitarian model that spread across the continent, and not the english empirical. The western empirical (truthful) government-of-exchanges was further undermined by the destruction of the American cooperation between the classes by the dissolution of senate as a representational body of state interests, by directly electing senators. And undermined yet again by the enfranchisement of non-property owners, instead of the creation of a separate house of non property owners, to replace the church’s representation of non-property owners. Combined with majority rule, this meant that instead of creating exchanges between the classes by requiring the consent of each class, the non-propertied lower classes, and in the end, it has become simply unmarried women, determine the outcome of all political decisions, creating not voluntary exchanges but involuntary impositions justified by the fact that politicians can appeal to minorities and unmarried women to parasite upon married couples who expend effort to create productive and self sufficient families.[See Pew research on the influence of women, then single mothers, on policy]. Every involuntary taking is a lost opportunity for voluntary exchange which creates a homogenous community, and instead, sets us apart. The authors of this deception are unfortunately predominantly Jewish, but their model was adopted by almost all western academic and political institutions after the second world war as a means of status seeking for neo-puritans, and advocating diversity and tolerance as a means of preserving jewish separatism by attacking western values of family, truth telling, and conformity to western norms. At present, we we call ‘The Cathedral’, or the Academy-Media-Government complex, has replaced the martial complex of the early twentieth century, which replaced the modern (scientific) academic complex that had evolved from the enlightenment, and culminating with Darwin, Maxwell, and Einstein. So we have progressively degenerated from the Modernism (science) to militarism, to pseudoscientific-propaganda-posmodern deceit in an attack on both the martial and scientific movements. So, Fukuyama is half right in his analysis of bureaucracy, but he merely seeks to justify his priors: his “end of history’ hypothesis. But, instead of his attempted justification of social democracy by imposing asian totalitarianism upon the west, the answer to the next generation – The Restoration – is instead to understand the failure of the enlightenment project was one of attempting to assume and advocate that local evolutionary strategies could be advocated as universal norms. And instead of trying to improve upon plato by creating professional bureaucracy somehow free of malincentives of all monopolies, to restore the institutional means of cooperation between the classes: to create moral government, now that we know what ‘moral’ means: productive, truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality. Where ‘truthfully stated’ requires adherence to science of truth telling: the five criteria: internal consistency, external correspondence, operational definition, exhaustively falsified, and free of negative externality. If this is understood, it will become clear that the conservative model is correct, and reflects science: to criticize all changes until they survive, rather than impose changes by law. In other words, conservatism is the remains of earlier scientific government, when one grasps that science is not justificationary but critical. This means that any The British did not so much as discover scientific (empirical) government,as discover that they already were practicing it. American conservatives continue the tradition of scientific government: that which is true and useful survives all criticism. If it is voluntarily adopted, then it is true. If it is not voluntarily adopted, then it is not true. The same goes for economic theory: Keynesian monetarism is in fact, ‘lying’ – disinformation. The question is instead, how do we perform the same end truthfully? Truth is enough. Lying has become too artful, too comfortable and too pervasive. It OBSCURES both the need for and incentive for truthful conduct of economics, politics and law. It is possible to achieve social democratic ends by truthful means. That is the subject of my coming work on post-majority-rule government. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

(second draft)(important piece) [P]ropaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response. The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We MUST rely upon intuition – we have no other choice. The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from Marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to Freudian Psychology, to Keynesian economics, the Anthropology of Franz Boas, to the outright fabrications of the Frankfurt School, to the postmodern philosophers, to American Feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of Critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media. These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘Critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means. In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons. We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgement on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’. THE MIRACLE OF THE WEST: TRUTH TELLING  [T]he rise of the west is due to a single accident: we discovered truth telling. We are the only people who discovered it, and paid the high cost to establish it as a commons – as normative infrastructure – in manners, ethics, morality, law, philosophy and science. And so it is truth telling that separates the west from the rest. All western excellences are the consequential result of truth telling. The ‘killer apps’ of western civilization are the product of a single technology: truth telling. Today, if not throughout history, we see science as physically constrained and separate from social and moral and spiritual subjects. But science is just the art of truth telling. And it is less ‘troublesome’ to speak the truth about the physical world than it is about human affairs. So science tried to constrain itself to those areas, except where brave souls like Aristotle, Livy, Machiavelli, Smith and Hume, and most importantly Darwin. The syntopical historians Toynbee, Durant, Quigley, Huntington, Mallory, Keegan, and intellectual historians Duchesne, and Hicks. The social scientists: Weber, Pareto, Michels and Duheim. And today’s cognitive scientists, and experimental psychologists: Searle, Pinker, Khanemann, and Haidt. But these empirical souls cold not compete with the propagandists who tried to unseat them. From Freud’s attempt to obscure Nietzche using pseudoscience. To the psychologizing of the postmodernists. From Boaz’s pseudoscinece in an attempt to obscure Darwin. From Keynes’s use of psudoscience to obscure the empiricists and moral “conservative” economists, through today’s combination of Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz and their allies who advocate ‘immoral economics’ if consumption is maintained, even if consumption could be maintain in exchange for moral reforms of immoral bureaucracies, tax evasion, and unproductive working hours. The German Rationalists, the Jewish Cosmopolitans, the Anglo Neo-Puritans, all seek to create a new authoritarianism justifying their control of society, The Indo-Europeans, the Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Norse, and British, sought to control society with truth, property, law, and jury. The British nearly perfected the technique – evolving the common, organic, law of property rights, through trial and error, and a means of voluntary exchange between the classes by using multiple houses of government. But the truth without authority frightens people who do not live on islands, and do not have control of their domains. How could the Germans maintain unity in the absence of church authority? How could the Jews maintain unity in the absence of dual-standard-ethics and a contravention of their separatist morality? How could the Anglo Neo-Puritans maintain status and power, and ensure they wouldn’t be outnumbered without the imposition of their ideology by force? It is one thing to use propaganda to make the world safe for jews by advocating diversity so that they can maintain a separatist and often parasitic, dual-ethic, society inside host societies – it is a necessary strategy for them even if damaging to host societies. It is another thing for northeastern american puritans to justify their conquest of territories. It is another thing for germans to try to conflate morality, truth, and duty so that they can maintain their stoic, paternal society. But of these the damage has been done most severely by the american use of altruistic punishment and moral justification for violence, and even more so by the jewish use of their main skill: propaganda, pseudoscience, and deceit – the germans merely armed the Jewish socialists, neocons, and libertines, and the anglo Neo-puritans. The actual damage done by the germans themselves was relatively limited. They were merely conquered and have been held from ruling Europe for two generations by American dominance – a period which is coming to an end. The damage done by the anglo ideology is currently self-correcting via post 1990 science (my generation), and the collapse of the postwar-mythos along with the rise of world consumer capitalism eliminating american military advantage. The damage done by the jewish propagandists is probably irreversible, and unless we break up the continent into smaller regional states, we face becoming another ‘brazil’, thanks to the jewish destruction of history, philosophy, truth telling, law, ethics, morality, and science by successfully manipulating the neo-puritans, and mobilizing women sufficiently to follow their socialistic reproductive strategies – at the expense of the family. (See Kevin Macdonald’s work on Critique) We see today the perfect culmination of Anglo imperial militarism, and Jewish propaganda, in Putin’s combination of multiple strains of propaganda, each of which appeals to the same moral bias, but cumulatively is self contradictory. (Google Yale University’s Timothy Snyder). WHAT DO WE DO? [W]e can restore truth quite easily. We can restore the greatest mistake in history: a right to free speech, versus a right to truthful speech. But to require truthful speech requires that we possess a logical, rational, and scientific means of determining just what constitutes truthful speech. And we have been missing this particular logical system: the logic of morality, for 2500 years. The reason why we have missed it, escapes me at present – although I am sure I will uncover it with time. **That single bit of logic is that the only possible moral rule is the total prohibition on the imposition of costs – or conversely – the right of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality.** Science has developed the art of speaking truthfully over centuries. However, the one truthful proposition that they have avoided is morality. The right of productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, is sufficient for a first-principle of all political discourse. The consequence of this single rule, is that political action must be constructed out of exchanges, rather than ‘collective goods’. Science currently warranties speech by requiring the following tests, that demonstrate we are not adding imaginary or allegorical content, to our statements:

1) External Correspondence (we can observe the phenomenon) 2) Internal Consistency (logical) 2.1) Identity : The Logic of Naming 2.2) Mathematics: The logic of relations 2.3) Physics: the logic of causation 2.4) Logic: the logic of language 3) Operationally defined (existentially possible) 4) Falsified (parsimonious) But, we can also add to science, the additional logical constraint, that in the social sphere, one’s argument is free of involuntary transfer (involuntarily imposed costs), by requiring that it is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of external imposed costs (externalities). As such we can add to scientific testimony the requirement:

5) Ethical and Moral.(Free of involuntary transfer) and 2.5) Morality: the logic of Cooperation If we add this constraint to scientific inquiry then there is no difference whatsoever between the physical and social domains of inquiry. There is no difference between science, philosophy, morality and law. The disciples are identical. We can say that something that is “unscientific” is therefore not ‘truthful’. And we may never know if we speak the truth, but we **can** warranty that we have performed sufficient due diligence that we speak truthfully. That is the best we can do, and in practice, the best we can do is the difference between the west and the rest, so it is certainly good enough. Therefore: 1) We can restore the greatest mistake in history by requiring all public speech to be warrantied, and granting universal standing to all citizens in court for the defense of the informational commons, and imposting restitution for accidental damage; and triple restitution as damages for intentional deception; and add triple damages for deception in court. This increasing expense is important since the production of truth is expensive, and the production of deceit is cheap. The only possible means of providing an incentive to produce truthful statements, is to raise the cost of deceit so that it is higher than the high cost of telling the truth. (Our current legal system has evolved to produce perverse incentives: to lie.) 2) We can restore the second greatest mistake in history: intentionally enforced ignorance: privatize our school systems with 100% free choice. Restore the teaching of grammar, rhetoric, manners, ethics(morality), logic, reason, the scientific method, the art of witness and testimony, rule of law under property rights and the organic evolution of law. In addition there is no reason we do not teach the counting of money, balancing checkbooks, banking and interest, basic managerial accounting, basic financial accounting and micro-economics to every student from sixth to 12th grade. It is far easier to teach than algebra, geometry and calculus, and demonstrably more important. This curriculum will teach the students truth, truth telling, and voluntary cooperation, not spend their time trying to justify the fallacy of majoritarianism and political power – justifying majority tyranny. 3) We can restore the third greatest mistake in history: the accidental construction of a state mandated religion advocating falsehoods: the university system and democratic secular socialism. This requires little other than requiring that all universities operate upon credit to students, collected from the future earnings of students as payroll levies, and then the elimination of all state-university policies, returning the university to the service of industry not the state bureaucracy. This will bankrupt departments that are demonstrably harmful and produce negative results in for graduates (mostly social work, which harms your income potential). 4) We can restore the fourth greatest mistake in history: the permission of the government to construct law, rather than to construct contract. Under the one rule of morality, the state may facilitate the negotiation of contracts for the purpose of constructing commons, but may not issue commands for other than the conduct of declared war. This leaves the courts the only possible means of constructing law, by discovering innovations in involuntary transfer, and constructing law to suppress new involuntary transfers, which then can be used as legal ‘theory’ until heard by the highest court. However, all laws are theoretical, and open to revision, at any time, if the original purpose of suppressing involuntary transfers no longer stands, and what law remains is merely an unnecessary cost to citizens. But for this system to remain logically integral, the law must state the original intent, stating the means of involuntary transfer it wishes to suppress, and then be constructed from first principles, to fulfill that intent. (The combination of positive assertion and negative prohibition, under strict construction is necessary to prevent expansion of discretion without specific declaration of the means of expansion.) 5) We can restore the fifth greatest mistake in history: that while law must be constructed for individuals, commons must be constructed for families. Consumption serves reproduction, or it serves only hedonistic purposes. Any and all civilizations who reward dysgenic reproduction of the lower classes or dysgenic consumption of the upper classes, merely consume the combined sacrifices and savings of prior generations, violating the contract with prior generations, and eliminating the incentive to produce a civilization. The west has been organized to care for the incompetent, and produce offspring of the competent. The alternative is the current trend of dysgenic reproduction and damage to the world ecosystem – our necessary means of production. 6) We can restore the sixth greatest mistake in history – one that is counter-intuitive: the civil society (individual ownership and accountability for the commons). We have at present 1 lawyer for every 300 people in the United States. I submit that this is half the required number of lawyers, that the standard of passing the bar should be raised, and truth-telling, witness, and testimony, be added to the requirements for the bar. And in addition:

• 6.1) That we demilitarize the police: The Sheriff be elected, and have passed the bar. Local police shall be under control of the Sheriff. That the Sheriff. That all employment as a deputy is at will. And that deputies are prohibited from That any man having performed military service may serve as deputy. And that the Sheriff shall rely upon volunteers (like the volunteer fire departments do), rather than a full compliment of permanent staff. That restitution should be instituted in all cases of harm, and in cases of fines, all such fines directed to the service of the poor, not the general fund or the office of the sheriff. That all volunteers, having served at least three years, may act as deputies at any time, and use command and violence if necessary to organize all available males to stop a property crime until a sheriff or deputy arrives. This alone will restore the civic society, by making males both understand morality and law, and take ownership of society.
• 6.2) Banking be professionalized and all those who issue credit on behalf of another (not their personal money) be required to pass the bar. And that the financial performance of any lender’s loans be measured and as readily available as any individual’s credit rating. Accounting and banking are a trivial technology compared to law and reallocation of employment will repopulate the current banking sector with superior individuals, who command higher salaries, and who, if they lose their ‘ticket’ will be irreparably harmed. 
• 6.3) Restore accountability to all individuals in an organization, and the total loss of insulation from responsibility for any act of involuntary transfer. The requirement for all individuals who handle money to be insured, and that the insurer warrants that these individuals understand and can perform truth telling, witness and testimony when called upon. This will restore morality to business and industry within three years. 
• 6.3) Grant universal standing for all commons, so that activist can bypass the (corrupt) state and go directly to the courts in those cases where the commons is harmed. This will require clarification of the law, and registration of each commons, and for each commons enumerating terms of “usus, fructus, macipio and abusus”. Any use of the commons must be insured, so that the insurer and the user bear the cost of enforcement. No individual in any organization is insulated from violations of the commons. This will have to be implemented over six years, since current abusers cannot rationally adapt faster than this. (Some law on the use of commons is also still not settled.)

7) Reform Keynesian economics.

• 7.1) Bypass the financial system, because the distribution of liquidity through the banks, as if we are still in an era of hard currency, is no longer necessary. Have the treasury acquire a majority interest the (worst) credit card company, Mastercard, Issue a new card to every social security card number. Distribute all liquidity equally to all card holders, and cause business, industry, and finance to compete for it, rather than cause consumers to act as slaves to interest that is questionably ethical in the first place. If this money is distributed equally, upper bracket holders can pay down taxes with it. It will also cause increase resistance to immigration of the lower classes. The liquidity must be formulaic (“rule based”) and non-discretionary, so it is free of the political sphere. This will also mean that de-facto citizenship is participation in this credit and without it no one can obtain such services. 
• 7.2) (Saving and retirement)
• 7.3) (Compensation for constructing, maintaining, and policing the commons)
• 7.X) (Not ready for discussion yet)

8) Limited Reform of Taxation: Eliminate corporate taxation on dividends, while preserving it on capital gains, and on retained earnings. Tax all dividends as regular income at personal income rates. Accelerate depreciation of all assets to current liquidation prices. 9) Reform of Majority Rule Government: restore cooperation between the classes.

• 9.1) Defense(military), Law(dispute resolution)(the courts), Insurance(of last resort), Commons(government). Caretaking(church) must function as independent institutions.
• 9.1) (not ready for discussion yet)

REFORMING FUKUYAMA’S THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY [T]his constantly adapting “self-organizing” solution is contrary to Fukuyama’s advocacy of a ‘professional bureaucracy’ in the Chinese model as the ‘end of history’ – not the least of which is because bureaucracy always produces stagnation, predation and poverty. Instead, this solution advocates the historical western model, in which the government is in fact, a private sector institution (a wholly owned corporation) analogous to a shopping mall, and the different groups within that corporation that we call ‘the private sector’ produces constant innovation, and is constantly replaced by generations of creative destruction, requiring constant political innovation, but constant innovation that requires the state only to act as observer and judge, not director, manager, or administrator. The reason being that the bureaucratic state is a monopoly that cannot be revised by competition – only by failure and revolution. The state as a judiciary, the monarchy as a final arbiter, the government as a producer of voluntary commons, all force constant adaptation to circumstance, and constant reorganization of the family, and the state, to reflect the technology available to the voluntary organization of production upon which our prosperity depends. Self interests among the monarchs preserves the long term concerns over short term consumptions. The west innovated faster because there is a minimum delta between an innovation, and the prevention of parasitism in both private and public sectors that can be placed upon it. Organic common law reacts as soon as an involuntary transfer is performed. The performance of the west is largely the result of the private sector innovating faster than the government can construct rents upon it. The anglo model was the most successful at preventing rents, by creating a means of constructing trades between the classes, by class-based institutions that we call ‘houses of government’. Fukuyama, despite his study of trust, cannot seem to imagine the importance of truth telling – a victim of genetic, cultural, and consensus bias I assume. Fukuyama errors, just as did Confucius, in failing to grasp that consensus is meaningless, management is meaningless, only truth telling and sovereignty separates the west from the rest. And that all our unique institutions, and our dramatic performance, are attributable to our having solve the problem of politics: sovereignty, truth telling, property rights, and jury. A solution neither Confucius, nor the Chinese bureaucracy – nor any other civilization – managed to solve. The fact that the Chinese created the state first, but did not discover truth, and despite being wealthier, more isolated, and more prosperous, repeatedly failed to discover a solution to the problem of politics. Unfortunately for the west, the French revolution reversed the gains of the English revolution and its implementation of empirical government. And it was the french rational-totalitarian model that spread across the continent, and not the english empirical. The western empirical (truthful) government-of-exchanges was further undermined by the destruction of the American cooperation between the classes by the dissolution of senate as a representational body of state interests, by directly electing senators. And undermined yet again by the enfranchisement of non-property owners, instead of the creation of a separate house of non property owners, to replace the church’s representation of non-property owners. Combined with majority rule, this meant that instead of creating exchanges between the classes by requiring the consent of each class, the non-propertied lower classes, and in the end, it has become simply unmarried women, determine the outcome of all political decisions, creating not voluntary exchanges but involuntary impositions justified by the fact that politicians can appeal to minorities and unmarried women to parasite upon married couples who expend effort to create productive and self sufficient families.[See Pew research on the influence of women, then single mothers, on policy]. Every involuntary taking is a lost opportunity for voluntary exchange which creates a homogenous community, and instead, sets us apart. The authors of this deception are unfortunately predominantly Jewish, but their model was adopted by almost all western academic and political institutions after the second world war as a means of status seeking for neo-puritans, and advocating diversity and tolerance as a means of preserving jewish separatism by attacking western values of family, truth telling, and conformity to western norms. At present, we we call ‘The Cathedral’, or the Academy-Media-Government complex, has replaced the martial complex of the early twentieth century, which replaced the modern (scientific) academic complex that had evolved from the enlightenment, and culminating with Darwin, Maxwell, and Einstein. So we have progressively degenerated from the Modernism (science) to militarism, to pseudoscientific-propaganda-posmodern deceit in an attack on both the martial and scientific movements. So, Fukuyama is half right in his analysis of bureaucracy, but he merely seeks to justify his priors: his “end of history’ hypothesis. But, instead of his attempted justification of social democracy by imposing asian totalitarianism upon the west, the answer to the next generation – The Restoration – is instead to understand the failure of the enlightenment project was one of attempting to assume and advocate that local evolutionary strategies could be advocated as universal norms. And instead of trying to improve upon plato by creating professional bureaucracy somehow free of malincentives of all monopolies, to restore the institutional means of cooperation between the classes: to create moral government, now that we know what ‘moral’ means: productive, truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality. Where ‘truthfully stated’ requires adherence to science of truth telling: the five criteria: internal consistency, external correspondence, operational definition, exhaustively falsified, and free of negative externality. If this is understood, it will become clear that the conservative model is correct, and reflects science: to criticize all changes until they survive, rather than impose changes by law. In other words, conservatism is the remains of earlier scientific government, when one grasps that science is not justificationary but critical. This means that any The British did not so much as discover scientific (empirical) government,as discover that they already were practicing it. American conservatives continue the tradition of scientific government: that which is true and useful survives all criticism. If it is voluntarily adopted, then it is true. If it is not voluntarily adopted, then it is not true. The same goes for economic theory: Keynesian monetarism is in fact, ‘lying’ – disinformation. The question is instead, how do we perform the same end truthfully? Truth is enough. Lying has become too artful, too comfortable and too pervasive. It OBSCURES both the need for and incentive for truthful conduct of economics, politics and law. It is possible to achieve social democratic ends by truthful means. That is the subject of my coming work on post-majority-rule government. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine