Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND COMPETITION IS WAR BY FRAUD RATHER THAN VIOLENCE. Reli

    THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND COMPETITION IS WAR BY FRAUD RATHER THAN VIOLENCE.

    Religion, when stated as positive law, consists of via-positiva commands and demands, and provides a means of subjugation, or division prior to conquest.

    Religion, when stated as Wisdom Literature, seeks only to provide advice you may or may not choose to take, solace you may choose to take when in need, and reason for celebration with your kin, tribe, and nation.

    Reason, when stated as a negative law, consists of via-negativa limits, provides a means of creating markets.

    Science, as measurement, provides a test of the truth of statements of reason, wisdom literature, and religion.

    1) There is only one natural law: reciprocity.

    2) Any religion that claims any other law is both a violation of natural law, and therefore a deception, fraud, theft, and harm to mankind.

    3) No religion that relies on any law other than natural law is not then a religion but a political system seeking to displace the current system by fraud, indifferent from seeking to displace the system of natural law by violence.

    4) Any attempt to advocate, apply, or institutionalize any law other than Natural Law is an act of war.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 09:37:00 UTC

  • MERKEL’S “GOING THEIR OWN WAY” This was the objective. To force europe to take r

    MERKEL’S “GOING THEIR OWN WAY”

    This was the objective. To force europe to take responsibility for defense costs, end USA subsidy, and reduce USA entanglements. Anglos still serve as the primary western defense, with all other nations supplying only token participation. Most of us want to drastically reduce our ‘interference’ after failures in the middle east. And it appears that the world having recovered from its experiment with communism and socialism is returning to convention: a balance of regional powers. And there is nothing we can do about it other than an organized withdrawal so that opportunistic power vacuums are not created that only increase risk. While we bore the postwar cost of combatting communism, political islam has replaced political communism this time adding immigration, and ‘the great migration’ of the third world is not something we can bear the costs of, having lost our economic advantage now that the rest of the world has abandoned communism which gave us such an economic and therefore military advantage. … So yes, (a) this is the administration’s strategy, which was stated during the campaign. (b) angela is running for reelection and is under serious threat so she is saying “europe needs a leader and I am the person to do it.” So as far as I know, this is the goal the administration is seeking. And all the ‘drama’ around it, is necessary since our previous efforts have all failed. So the administration (trump) is making it impossible for them to skate on paying their fair share both monetarily, in leadership, and in readiness. Americans have proven ourselves incompetent on the world stage because of our utopianism. Everyone in the world knows that. The best way to restore competence is to reduce the scope of one’s efforts.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 06:40:00 UTC

  • What Is The Relationship Between Liberty And Capitalism?

    Sovereignty in fact exists or it does not. One has sufficient force in himself or his reciprocally insured allies to prevent his subjugation or not.

    Liberty is given by permission of the Sovereign, and refers to those who are self sufficient but whose rights can be imposed upon. Although liberty originally referred to the right of a people to preserve local law and custom in their own matters, and is therefore a political grant from the sovereigns, we tend to conflate it with Freedom.

    Freedom is given by permission of someone or some people capable of depriving you of it, and refers to those who might have been candidates for slavery, but have earned their freedom by some means, or at least, not lost it by other means. The common libertarian advocacy of a cuneiform term, says literally ‘return to the mother’, which means that one’s required service to the ruler for the term has been fulfilled.

    Capitalism refers to the use of contract, money, prices, and accounts, the elimination of rents on territorial resources, by its allocation to individuals, along with the distribution to individuals of discretion on the use of one’s physical energy, time, and possessions obtained by voluntary exchange. In other words, the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade using incentives made possible by individual calculation of the most beneficial options available to him. What is usually lost in this discourse is that the individualization of property prohibits local rents, allowing the centralization of rents that we consider taxation, and that this centralization of rents is one of the primary causes of the reduction of opportunity and transaction costs that makes a voluntarily organized economy possible at the expense of those who would live parasitically of the local collection of rents. In other words, capitalism converts subservience to ‘mafia’ at various local scales which impede production, to subservience to a single central ‘mafia’ in exchange for eliminating those rents that impeded production.

    Liberty AND Capitalism

    1. Therefore the relationship between capitalism and liberty is, precisely, that the sovereign will not interfere in the voluntary organization of production other than to create it in the first place, resolve conflicts as they arise by demand for reciprocity of obligation and rights in the contracts between parties, and to prevent the externalization of costs to the commons or the privatization of commons in the course of private transactions.
    2. However the problem of the degree of taxation (commission), the maximum calculation of which is the favorite hobby of economists, is not answered by this question. Nor is the use of those taxes (commissions), to produce commons within or without of the private economy.
    3. Therefore we colloquially use the term ‘capitalism’, to refer to the policy bias in favor of minimum taxation, competition, and interference in the market, and we use social democracy or the more pejorative ‘socialism’ to refer to the policy bias in favor of maximum taxation, egalitarianism, and interference in the market for the production of goods, services and information. The central conflcit being that the state does not insure the risk of capital and its losses but takes income regardless of that risk and those losses. And on the other hand, the combination of scale, wealth (capital), and credit, is such a more powerful competitive advantage that those with mere labor can compete with or even seek to participate in.
    4. Therefore liberty and capitalism can only exist when political questions are decidable because costs and returns are calculable, because coincidences of want are marginal, and consequences are perceivable. (Yeah, I know but once you read that a few times you’ll get it, and its important.)

    The net of this is that unless you possess sovereignty the best you can possess is liberty, and both liberty and property exist only as matters of degree in the balance between the impossibility of pure capitalism except between powerful states, and the impossibility of pure communism except within the family. And instead the useful point of demarcation between more capitalism less capitalism and least capitalism, depending upon whether we are in a mode of territorial or economic expansion requiring private risk(capitalism), a mode of relative calm requiring the production of commons (mixed economy), or at war (nationalized and centralized economy).

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-liberty-and-capitalism

  • What Is The Relationship Between Liberty And Capitalism?

    Sovereignty in fact exists or it does not. One has sufficient force in himself or his reciprocally insured allies to prevent his subjugation or not.

    Liberty is given by permission of the Sovereign, and refers to those who are self sufficient but whose rights can be imposed upon. Although liberty originally referred to the right of a people to preserve local law and custom in their own matters, and is therefore a political grant from the sovereigns, we tend to conflate it with Freedom.

    Freedom is given by permission of someone or some people capable of depriving you of it, and refers to those who might have been candidates for slavery, but have earned their freedom by some means, or at least, not lost it by other means. The common libertarian advocacy of a cuneiform term, says literally ‘return to the mother’, which means that one’s required service to the ruler for the term has been fulfilled.

    Capitalism refers to the use of contract, money, prices, and accounts, the elimination of rents on territorial resources, by its allocation to individuals, along with the distribution to individuals of discretion on the use of one’s physical energy, time, and possessions obtained by voluntary exchange. In other words, the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade using incentives made possible by individual calculation of the most beneficial options available to him. What is usually lost in this discourse is that the individualization of property prohibits local rents, allowing the centralization of rents that we consider taxation, and that this centralization of rents is one of the primary causes of the reduction of opportunity and transaction costs that makes a voluntarily organized economy possible at the expense of those who would live parasitically of the local collection of rents. In other words, capitalism converts subservience to ‘mafia’ at various local scales which impede production, to subservience to a single central ‘mafia’ in exchange for eliminating those rents that impeded production.

    Liberty AND Capitalism

    1. Therefore the relationship between capitalism and liberty is, precisely, that the sovereign will not interfere in the voluntary organization of production other than to create it in the first place, resolve conflicts as they arise by demand for reciprocity of obligation and rights in the contracts between parties, and to prevent the externalization of costs to the commons or the privatization of commons in the course of private transactions.
    2. However the problem of the degree of taxation (commission), the maximum calculation of which is the favorite hobby of economists, is not answered by this question. Nor is the use of those taxes (commissions), to produce commons within or without of the private economy.
    3. Therefore we colloquially use the term ‘capitalism’, to refer to the policy bias in favor of minimum taxation, competition, and interference in the market, and we use social democracy or the more pejorative ‘socialism’ to refer to the policy bias in favor of maximum taxation, egalitarianism, and interference in the market for the production of goods, services and information. The central conflcit being that the state does not insure the risk of capital and its losses but takes income regardless of that risk and those losses. And on the other hand, the combination of scale, wealth (capital), and credit, is such a more powerful competitive advantage that those with mere labor can compete with or even seek to participate in.
    4. Therefore liberty and capitalism can only exist when political questions are decidable because costs and returns are calculable, because coincidences of want are marginal, and consequences are perceivable. (Yeah, I know but once you read that a few times you’ll get it, and its important.)

    The net of this is that unless you possess sovereignty the best you can possess is liberty, and both liberty and property exist only as matters of degree in the balance between the impossibility of pure capitalism except between powerful states, and the impossibility of pure communism except within the family. And instead the useful point of demarcation between more capitalism less capitalism and least capitalism, depending upon whether we are in a mode of territorial or economic expansion requiring private risk(capitalism), a mode of relative calm requiring the production of commons (mixed economy), or at war (nationalized and centralized economy).

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-liberty-and-capitalism

  • ADDING MORE WALKING AREA TO CITIES IS GOOD… IF…. Yes, in general creating is

    ADDING MORE WALKING AREA TO CITIES IS GOOD… IF….

    Yes, in general creating islands free of cars in the urban sea is a great strategy. It certainly reflects the ‘block’ strategy of pre-modern european cities. And It is a much better solution than the failed london program to make it too costly to drive in the city.

    BUT …. Just to state the obvious: one of the reasons we pay for gated buildings, gated communities, suburbia, or rural residences, and pay to drive cars everywhere, is because unlike europe, america does not aggressively limit ‘unacceptable public behavior’ and worse, we can be trapped on trains, subways and busses with people we would prefer for health, safety, and aesthetic reasons, to insulate ourselves from.

    Just as the gay rights movement was civilized by the conformity provided by the marriage movement, the public transport movement would be vastly more successful if it addressed the real reason that so many people avoid public transportation even where its available: the treatment of public spaces as sacred (places where we have no freedoms of expression other than movement through them).

    The same applies to the sidewalks. It’s all well and good, but in most american cities it would just turn into another area where people congregate and serve as prey, for unhealthy, criminal, and anti-social behavior.

    (Remember, some of us are born with high tolerance or low tolerance for ‘egalitarian purity’ and some of us are born with high tolerance or low tolerance for disgusting, impure, and anti-social behaviors. The fact that we think these are learned rather than genetically determined is just one of those pseudoscientific bits thats still the wishful thinking of postmodernists. You have to satisfy the market for freedom of expression AND the market for purity if you want to achieve european levels of urban living. )

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-29 13:59:00 UTC

  • Q: “CURT, IS THE ‘WHITE RACE’ GENETICALLY SUPERIOR OR JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THE

    Q: “CURT, IS THE ‘WHITE RACE’ GENETICALLY SUPERIOR OR JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME?”

    (hot topic)(good stuff)

    Um. It’s that, like East Asians, the European white subrace is DEMOGRAPHICALLY superior, and because it is demographically superior, it is institutionally and culturally superior, which is why it’s economically technologically and militarily superior. That’s because the single best thing you can do to advance your population is shrink your working, lower, and underclass populations such that the median ability of individuals per calorie of production per capita allows the highest investment in individuals while preserving the rate of return. (a mouthful but it’s not that complicated.)

    Whether White Europeans are genetically superior is questionable. Of the SUBRACES, only Han/Korean/Japanese, and White Europeans, have succeeded in (a) reducing the size of the underclass, and (b) reduced the rate and depth of sexual maturity. The Ashkenazi have in addition, (c) reversed sexual dimorphism which has proven an interesting and novel strategy.

    But this domestication of the human animal has had consequences. The east asians have been the most successful at limiting sexual maturity, and may in fact, have surpassed the benefit of doing so, but they have gained longer lifespans and somewhat superior health because of it. They appear to have superior memories in addition which accounts for their academic performance. Unfortunately they have culturally selected for intolerance for challenges to the status hierarchy (preferring stagnation).

    The Europeans have transferred female morphological traits to males, but maintained high sexual dimorphism despite lower levels of testosterone than all but east asians.

    The Ashkenazi have transferred female superiority in verbal expression to males, at the expense of the consequences of transferring other normatively female traits to males such as a much higher incidence of homosexuality. They have selected for disruption of the host population’s dominance hierarchy while retaining use of the female preference for internal equality. Effectively the Ashkenazi have adopted the female reproductive strategy and it appears they have genetically adapted to it as well. (Studying their use of this strategy has been interesting in that it illustrates the range of what is possible through selective expression of gender traits.)

    The rest of the world populations have been unable to reduce the scale of their working, lower, and underclasses sufficiently to lower demographic resistance to improving their institutions both formal and informal – particularly improving their higher incidences of corruption. Moreover, some information systems and some ideas prohibit the improvement of knowledge just as the lower and working classes inhibits the improvement of formal and informal institutions. So once we have analyzed the successes of the european, ashkenazi, and east asian populations we are left with the same problem for everyone else: demographic distribution is so heavy on the bottom that the top cannot develop a means of organizing society using incentives (cheap) rather than force (expensive) to produce goods, services, and information necessary to raise them out of ignorance, superstition, and poverty.

    The reason for EUROPEAN white sub-race’s success in the ancient and modern world was made possible by rather obvious factors:

    1 – the location between the steppe which provided the horse, europe which provided the wheel, and the armenians who provided bronze technology. The mobility provided by the combination of these technologies made it possible to replace the european population almost entirely as it moved westward. And to conquer the older peoples as they moved eastward and southward. Encountering the older peoples, they preferred to rule then integrate with them, and have largely disappeared as other than genetic contributors.

    2 – Farming on the european plain is reasonably fruitful given the growing season but ruling it more difficult than the concentration of production in river valley and it’s longer growing seasons. Even if less difficult than the near impossibility of ruling the steppe and desert pastoral people for whom fixed capital is nearly impossible to hold, and therefore threaten, rule, and tax. So where the fertile crescent, North Indian, and Chinese river valley civilizations could develop through central control of production, and extraction of rents. And where they could count on trade routes across the warmer parts of the globe, europeans could not so easily concentrate capital without seafaring. And steppe and desert people could not do so at all. This is why these civilizations developed in order.

    3 – The european winters that are harsh enough that those lacking sufficient physical, emotional, intellectual, and reproductive desirability cannot survive the vicissitudes of nature. And conversely, whereas people in warm climates benefit from rapid maturity in order to survive disease gradients, people in cold climates benefit from slower maturity in order to invest in higher discipline and industriousness. So for all intents and purposes those people who lack industriousness in northern climes could not survive, and those people in equatorial climes required early maturity to survive.

    4 – Both East Asians (han, korean, chinese) and europeans (Atlantics, Celts, Germanics, Scandinavians, Baltics, Slavs, Southern slavs, ) were successful because of lack of neighboring competitors. Everyone left in Europe after the Aryan migration was kin or near kin. The chinese had their civil wars early and solidified control of the strip of green along the pacific. This condition selected for lower clannishness.

    However, in the middle east, european forest, river, and sea people, levantine sea and desert people, indo-iranian and their MANY offshoots across the middle east, central asia and north africa, and the semitic people’s of inland and peninsula as well as sub-saharan africans all competed and developed extraordinary clannishness.

    And worse, since the steppe and desert people, always behind, always lacking capital, always mobile, and always the world’s terrorist underclass, disrupted the east, west, and south until the byzantines and the persians had exhausted themselves, and they were caught by the desert expansion of the arabs from the south.

    5 – This clannishness or lack of it, number of non-kin neighbors, rate and depth of sexual maturity, balance of sexual dimorphism, and scale of the underclass, as well as the traditions necessary to form political orders in the concentrated river (great/Fertile Crescent), distributed forest and rivers(good/east and west) , and fragmentary steppe and desert (bad/north and south), or the inability to participate in eurasian trade routes (sub-saharan africa, southeast asia, and the americas) describes the primary reason for empirical consequences of racial differences, caused largely by demographic adaptation to regional demands.

    6 – However, east, center, and west, developed three very different intellectual traditions.

    The east developed ritualism, observation and reason. Not religion as we understand it. Not science, logic, or rationalism as we understand it, not necessarily philosophy as we understand it, but observation, reason, accounting, and many technologies. They developed a society largely a literature of reason.

    The aristocratic center developed zoroastrianism, which we can call religious literary tradition, and relied upon that as their philosophical framework. This decision was to have profound consequences. They developed the conflation of supernatural religion and philosophy as their literature.

    The slaves (jews) conflated supernatural and philosophical literature, with their law and history, and developed authoritarian supernatural mysticism – beginning with abrahamism which split into judaism ( middle class administrative), christianity (working class levantine and roman), and islam (underclass steppe and desert). religions. This decision was to have profound consequences. Because between islam for the past 1400 years, and judaism in the form of Marxism/Communism, Abrahamism has been second only to the black plague black plague in accumulated deaths throughout all of history. (really).

    The west retained paganism, rather than ritualism, or monotheism, and partly for this reason they practiced deflation in every discipline. Meaning that religion, holidays, festivals, philosophy, politics and law, were separate disciplines. And meaning that governments were merely collections of noble families negotiating their common interests, with a leader generally chosen as headman, chieftain, or king.

    So in the west, quite by accident, the debate between equals, evolved into common law, the method of argument in to reason, and reason into philosophy and philosophy into science. And the reason this was possible was because the military aristocracy cooperated contractually – voluntarily – for the common good, and enfranchised men into the military to increase their numbers, and indoctrinating them into the western way of war.

    The western way of war required maneuver, and contract, between nobility and their followers. And soldiers learned to ‘report’ or ‘testify’ – reporting empirically without color, loading, of framing – or men die. In other words, westerners discovered what we call empirical (meaning observable) truth and institutionalized it. And instead of ‘truth’ being a threat to the existing *arbitrary* dominance hierarchy, truth was a respectable means of climbing the dominance hierarchy. So between deflationary institutions, argumentative reason, contractualism, common law, jury, testimony, and the value of truthful speech, the west was able to adapt, innovate, faster than the rest of the surrounding civilizations despite inferior numbers, being poorer, and being on the remote edge of the far more mature bronze age civilizations.

    The Justinian Plague and the Arab Conquest of the mediterranean, and generations of piracy, raids, and slave trading of europe by the muslims caused the dark ages, more so than the germanics who wanted to join the empire.

    But despite the failures of the merovingians and the franks, by the 700’s the north sea peoples had started to develop a sufficient trade system to create enough wealth to lose their dependence upon overland trade with the mediterranean.

    So by 700’s we see bipartite manorialism which results in the near total replacement of the underclass by downwardly mobile members of the genetic middle class. By the high middle ages we see the development of academies and consistent trade routes. Then the import of greek and roman thought as persecuted intellectuals fled the arab conquest of the byzantines. And by the late middle ages the hansa (germanic north sea) civilization would develop, above the Hajnal line, creating what we call ‘the puritan ethic’ and the ‘absolute nuclear family’ and ‘government by rule of law’; rule without rulers.

    That’s really the answer. Westerners discovered deflationary truth, which allowed them to adapt to change faster, and they succeeded as did the chinese in aggressive killing off of the underclass through manorialism, hanging 1% of the population per year, plagues, winter starvation, and war. In other words, it’s not that the western peoples are better. It’s that the people who were not good in the west are nearly gone.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 17:59:00 UTC

  • JESUS’ TEACHINGS FOR THE LOWER CLASSES, ZOROASTRIAN MORE SOPHISTICATED FOR THE M

    JESUS’ TEACHINGS FOR THE LOWER CLASSES, ZOROASTRIAN MORE SOPHISTICATED FOR THE MIDDLE AND UPPER. (AND ISLAM FOR THE UNDERCLASS)

    If you take jesus’s advice and teachings, remove god from them, they constitute an moral attack on pettiness and tribalism, in an effort to foster kinship love between peoples decidedly bred for tribal and clan conflict. This particular lesson was more useful in domesticating undomesticated people, than the zoroastrian, that was more suitable to the more sophisticated and ‘older’ civilization of Persia.

    Greek philosophy is an aristocratic body of thought, and stoicism an upper middle and middle class body of thought.

    Where our Greek ancestors practiced deflationary thought and separated religion, politics, law, and philosophy – and could do so because paganism didn’t allow them to conflate philosophy with religion – the Iranian branch of whom the Persians are the most successful, practiced conflation of religion and philosophy.

    The Abrahamism made a slave religion by conflation of philosophy, religion and authoritarian law. The christians spun off for the ‘next level down’ below the persians by conflating the two. And the muslims spun off of christianity by creating a message for the lowest of the classes – the herding peoples.

    So abrahamism is better understood as the means by which the conquered peoples of the levant and the arab world could rebel against their rulers by turning their monotheistic religion into a rebellion.

    Just as the jews and the french have turned christianity against the aristocracy of the west using marxism and postmodernsm. It’s just that islam has also joined the fray.

    Alll they have done is prove our point: the aryans were superior in both the western and eastern branches. The problem was, that in the east, they were seduced and exterminated through inbreeding.

    in the west, that’s what’sgoing on today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 15:45:00 UTC

  • HOW WAS CHRISTIANITY MADE? Take paganism: Sky Father, Jupiter, Mithra, Sol Invic

    HOW WAS CHRISTIANITY MADE?

    Take paganism: Sky Father, Jupiter, Mithra, Sol Invictus. Cast this character as an authoritarian god you must obey or you will be punished – instead of an advisory god who you choose cooperate with by asking favors. Claim a popular evangelical preacher is his messenger. Embellish this set of lies by pulling bits of or whole myths together and editing them to support the story. Put it in a book so it’s a canon. Close all the competing schools. Impose the rituals and holidays and stories on the people via propagandists. And you get a LAW BOOK. With a law book you have an authoritarian normative government that mirrors and authoritarian martial an commercial government. And in doing so you manufacture ignorance. Obedience, yes. Conformity, yes.

    That’s christianity: the imposition of ignorance on our people as a means of re-conquest of thew estern empire by the east, using middle eastern abrahamic reality-by-chanting (propagandism).

    Does that look a lot like Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, and the Frankfurt school? You bet it does. The frankfurt school and the council of nicea are very little different in consequence.

    Our people are being defeated yet again by the second, or if you consider Augustine, the third attempt at abrahamic deceptions: a technique invented to conquer and enslave the people of the middle east and india by their Indo Iranian conquerors.

    The only smart people are the chinese. They don’t put up with this stuff. THey will silence you. Without mercy. And they are right to.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 14:59:00 UTC

  • Natural law says “people retaliate everywhere and always even at high personal c

    Natural law says “people retaliate everywhere and always even at high personal cost, against imposition of costs against that which they have invested in. The record of torts in all cultures, and all civilization, across all time, regardless of legal systems, consists of tests of reciprocity given the portfolio of interests in the current division of labor and norms. The existential record international law, like international law throughout history is always and everywhere reducible to tests of reciprocity. Logically, no organism can both cooperate and survive competition, without developing reciprocity. Moreover, all organisms capable of cooperation demonstrate preservation of ‘cheating’ as a means of preserving the test of reciprocity such that the test of reciprocity is not lost through genetic or habitual optimism. In fact, we can find no evidence of altruism anywhere within the species that is not either kin selection, or altruistic PUNISHMENT. Furthermore, researchers cannot find a better game theory strategy than tit for tat, and increasing tolerance for cheating given the noise (error) possible in the exchanges.’

    I don’t make ‘should’ or ‘good’ arguments. I search for decidability in matters of dispute. I argue against bads and leave goods up to market choice.

    Reciprocity cannot rationally or logically be defeated that I know of, nor can it be empirically defeated that I know of. As far as I know all conflcits are decidable by tests of reciprocity against imposition of costs aginst property in toto, that has been gained by discovery and conversino (homesteading), conversion from prior states of one’s inventory, or obtained in productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality.

    cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 14:25:00 UTC

  • You know, we had serious and voluminous witch trials in this civilization only 3

    You know, we had serious and voluminous witch trials in this civilization only 350 years ago. Sure, it was a means of church oppression of the remaining folk cults and superstitions. Sure, it was a good way to get rid of poor, crazy, old women. But this is the result of Abrahamism.

    We had serious inquisitions from the 1250 to 1450, in part to eradicate the remaining muslims and jewish conspirators. In part to suppress factionalism when europe was recovering from there most severe weaknesses. But that was the result of Abrahamism.

    Our first meaningful attack against abrahamism was the printing press in 1440. Our second attack against abrahamism was in the reformation from 1547 to 1648 – ending with the peace of westphalia.

    We had the english revolution – from 1640 to 1688 – or rather, our contractual evolution. Where the middle classes succeeded established the sacred rights of property (abolition of feudal tenures, no arbitrary taxation), gave political power to the propertied (sovereignty of Parliament and common law, abolition of prerogative courts), and removed all impediments to the triumph of the ideology of the men of property – the “protestant ethic.” Or the ‘rights of anglo saxons’, or the ‘rights of englishmen’ had been ‘restored’. The monarchy had already destroyed the academy (monasteries). The bourgeoisie then destroyed the rents of the agrarian nobility, centralizing government further (which was a mistake). So we had restored our pre-christian order once again, but preserved its public rituals.

    And we had the french counter-revolution against protestantism and science. And we had the Kantian and German counter-revolution against science. And the ashkenazi reformation to resist science. We had the French, German, and Jewish attempts to restore abrahamism in non-supernatural, but merely rational prose. But it was simply a set of justificationary restatements.

    Then we had three events in the western world simultaneously as 1) the french horrors of napoleon were launched. 2) The british divorced from german civilization evolving in to merchants like the jews; but along with the americans continued their empiricism, producing Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer. 3) The germans united and began the process of the second enlightenment, this time in both the physical and social sciences, as well as the arts and literature contributing weber and nietzsche in particular. For the first time, envisioning a future free of Abrahamism. 4) The jews united and began the process of revolting against the second enlightenment by converting abrahamism from a religious movement to a pseudoscientific and pseudorational one, via Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, and the Frankfurt School – followed by Rand/Rothbard and Leo Strauss. 5) the Jews succeeded in Russia where they failed elsewhere, and created the bolshevik revolution, and their reign of destruction and terror.

    In the chaos of this change and absent the monarchies to resolve conflicts the powers went to war and destroyed one another, leaving europe in ashes, and only america and russia capable of asserting power in the world.

    The germans gave up hope and dropped from the world stage. The ‘childish’ americans took over the british empire and eventually her banking and investment markets. and in the chaos.

    The french, realizing the falure of the jewish/soviet catastrophe, doubled down on their pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience with the postmodernists culminating in Derrida. Each of these pseudoscientific movements.

    The jews, russians and the french spent their energies on using ‘intellectuals’ (non producers) to weaponize propaganda to leverage democracy, and bring about the abrahamic promise of the ancient second coming, and the medieval afterlife, with the future of free goods and services, as well as equality as long as the ‘intellectuals’ were empowered.

    But by the mid 60’s the only solution the left could adopt was to immigrate third worlders in vast numbers, and they opened the doors to the USA. By the mid 70’s the great society movement had failed, and by 1980 we returned to traditional social order once again. But between the dissolution of the family, the decline in births, and the rapid immigration of third worlders, the restitution of our society from ‘the plague of the abrahamic century – the jewish century’ was prevented.

    And so today, we must finally finish the enlightenment – the restoration of our ancient civlization, by casting off all vestiges of abrahamism, and once again restore our ‘anglo saxon contractualism’ under it’s proper name: the natural law of reciprocity, and the demand for sovereignty, created by the only means possible: the reciprocal insurance against loss of sovereignty by the warranty that any violation of sovereignty against any member will be met with overwhelming violence.

    There is only one religion of the west and that is transcendence into gods, and only one law of the west by which to do so: Natural Law. And only one means of achieving both: heroism, and violence for the purpose of denying all the ability to rule, leaving only natural law, and therefore rule of law, and markets in everything as possible means of survival.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 13:12:00 UTC