Form: Reply

—“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine

Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals.

That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man.

The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up.

1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci)

2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington)

3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong)

4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd)

5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer)

4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law)

5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups.

6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent).

7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them:

Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational

German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative.

French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds.

Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative.

Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias.

WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT?

To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands).

WHY SUCH STRICTNESS

Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man.

ERGO:

Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain.

NO MORE LIES.

The next evolution of man is as costly as the last.

We can complete the enlightenment.

We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts.

Just as we converted from mysticism.

And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosohpy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine