INQUISITION?
(serious question)
If we created a new inquisition to prosecute the great lies – a purification of the informational commons – then what religions, ideas, political systems would survive, and what would be purged?
How long would it take us to restore truth telling: Aristocracy?
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-30 06:22:00 UTC
(important piece) [I] know I’m not the first person to say this, but it’s pretty clear that Russia is not only the ultimate expression of postmodernism (lying), but that it evolved to this state by reforming jewish strategy, philosophy, and law: destroy the trust of the outsiders in order to create demand for authority and group cohesion, thereby creating opportunity for predation. While the founders of Russia were disproportionately jewish, and while their secret service was disproportionately jewish, what is more important is that the jewish strategy was useful for the Mongolian/Tatar/Islamic authoritarianism that is the source of Russian political culture. Russia combines ‘white’ people, Steppe totalitarianism, and jewish deceit (propaganda) as the complete economic, social, political and martial expression of the jewish strategy: destroy the higher trust societies and create demand for authority, and create opportunity for predation. If we go back through history and see the success of lying created through zoroastrian monotheism: jewish, it’s revolutionary reformation: christianity, and it’s counter-revolutionary authoritarianism: Islamism, then it’s modern branches in Marxism, Western Postmodernism, Russian secular judaism, and anglo progressive pseudoscience and outright lying, then We can not only cure ourselves, but we can disarm the world: TRUTH IS ENOUGH. The Truthful and Trusting society may not be the end of history, but social democracy is certainly not. There are three means of production of commons: – Truthful and Trustful (libertarian: rule of law, civic society) – Pragmatic and Utilitarian (social democracy) – Deceitful and Parasitic (authoritarianism) We have focused our efforts too long on the economy. Consumer capitalism has won the battle for the production of goods and services. We no longer fight that battle. And focusing our efforts on it is a waste of energy. We won not by arguments but by resisting the state long enough so that the logically obvious could result in the empirically demonstrable: the voluntary organization of production is the only successful technology for the production of consumer goods and services. Instead of the battle for a voluntary economy, the battle we face today is the suppression of parasitism in central bureaucracy and the expansion of trust and thereby increase of economic velocity. We must create the non-parasitic voluntary production of commons just as we created the non-parasitic voluntary production of goods and services. At present there is only one way we know of by which to destroy all parasitism, increase trust, increase economic velocity, increase prosperity, ad therefore increase choices. That is universal standing under the common law, the legal prohibition of parasitism, by mutual insurance: the exchange of guarantee of defense and restitution of property-en-toto. But we must also provide for the construction of commons by voluntary means, by changing what is currently a monopoly constructed by majority ascent into a market wherein any non-parasitic exchange between the classes, or objective of the classes can be constructed. We succeeded in transforming humanity into the voluntary organization of production of goods and services we call consumer capitalism. Our next mission – purely out of self defense – is to transform our government into a voluntary organization of commons. This project is eminently possible. It will forever render the corporeal state to the dustbin of antiquity, categorically relegated to another attempt at pseudoscience for the purpose of pure power accumulation and nothing more. We have a very simple mission then. To reform every possible constitution such that the judiciary shall prohibit all parasitism without exception. And that the provision of commons be one of adjudication of differences, not of ascent. And that the defense of the realm be the province of every man, under universal standing under the common law. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
(important piece) [I] know I’m not the first person to say this, but it’s pretty clear that Russia is not only the ultimate expression of postmodernism (lying), but that it evolved to this state by reforming jewish strategy, philosophy, and law: destroy the trust of the outsiders in order to create demand for authority and group cohesion, thereby creating opportunity for predation. While the founders of Russia were disproportionately jewish, and while their secret service was disproportionately jewish, what is more important is that the jewish strategy was useful for the Mongolian/Tatar/Islamic authoritarianism that is the source of Russian political culture. Russia combines ‘white’ people, Steppe totalitarianism, and jewish deceit (propaganda) as the complete economic, social, political and martial expression of the jewish strategy: destroy the higher trust societies and create demand for authority, and create opportunity for predation. If we go back through history and see the success of lying created through zoroastrian monotheism: jewish, it’s revolutionary reformation: christianity, and it’s counter-revolutionary authoritarianism: Islamism, then it’s modern branches in Marxism, Western Postmodernism, Russian secular judaism, and anglo progressive pseudoscience and outright lying, then We can not only cure ourselves, but we can disarm the world: TRUTH IS ENOUGH. The Truthful and Trusting society may not be the end of history, but social democracy is certainly not. There are three means of production of commons: – Truthful and Trustful (libertarian: rule of law, civic society) – Pragmatic and Utilitarian (social democracy) – Deceitful and Parasitic (authoritarianism) We have focused our efforts too long on the economy. Consumer capitalism has won the battle for the production of goods and services. We no longer fight that battle. And focusing our efforts on it is a waste of energy. We won not by arguments but by resisting the state long enough so that the logically obvious could result in the empirically demonstrable: the voluntary organization of production is the only successful technology for the production of consumer goods and services. Instead of the battle for a voluntary economy, the battle we face today is the suppression of parasitism in central bureaucracy and the expansion of trust and thereby increase of economic velocity. We must create the non-parasitic voluntary production of commons just as we created the non-parasitic voluntary production of goods and services. At present there is only one way we know of by which to destroy all parasitism, increase trust, increase economic velocity, increase prosperity, ad therefore increase choices. That is universal standing under the common law, the legal prohibition of parasitism, by mutual insurance: the exchange of guarantee of defense and restitution of property-en-toto. But we must also provide for the construction of commons by voluntary means, by changing what is currently a monopoly constructed by majority ascent into a market wherein any non-parasitic exchange between the classes, or objective of the classes can be constructed. We succeeded in transforming humanity into the voluntary organization of production of goods and services we call consumer capitalism. Our next mission – purely out of self defense – is to transform our government into a voluntary organization of commons. This project is eminently possible. It will forever render the corporeal state to the dustbin of antiquity, categorically relegated to another attempt at pseudoscience for the purpose of pure power accumulation and nothing more. We have a very simple mission then. To reform every possible constitution such that the judiciary shall prohibit all parasitism without exception. And that the provision of commons be one of adjudication of differences, not of ascent. And that the defense of the realm be the province of every man, under universal standing under the common law. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
ARISTOCRACY (PATRIARCHY) IS A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILTY: WE SET LIMITS. WE DON’T ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY. WE PRODUCE THE FIRST COMMONS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION. [O]ur function is to incrementally but consistently evolve our people (and prevent their devolution) by preventing parasitism, and forcing productive cooperation. We force the development of markets for good and services by prohibiting parasitism. We force the production of markets for commons by prohibiting parasitism.
ARISTOCRACY (PATRIARCHY) IS A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILTY: WE SET LIMITS. WE DON’T ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY. WE PRODUCE THE FIRST COMMONS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION. [O]ur function is to incrementally but consistently evolve our people (and prevent their devolution) by preventing parasitism, and forcing productive cooperation. We force the development of markets for good and services by prohibiting parasitism. We force the production of markets for commons by prohibiting parasitism.
(important piece) (challenge of the patriarchy)
[Y]our Charter. The demands of your revolution :
1) All cults (religions) require ceremony. They create enfranchisement. Mythology and ritual produce ownership. The more costly to the participants the mythology and ritual, the longer the group will persist, and the more impervious it is to competition. (This rule is invariant through history)
2) Those monarchies that have retained ceremony persist, and those that did not do not.
3) Those groups that maintain monarchies retain economic superiority over those that do not. (their governments are also often suicidal in no small part as a means of competing with the monarchy for power, which they rightfully see as a threat.)
4) The reason that the monarchies fell was that they failed to copy the British method of creating additional houses for newly enfranchised classes. The British failed to add a house of women, and one of proletarians. The Americans not only reversed the division of classes by directly electing the senate, but also failed to add new houses for proletarians and for women.
5) This error is reversible. The common law of property rights is universal to man (and any other sentient creature for that matter). the martial aristocracy requires martial and legal order, the productive aristocracy requires a multitude of trade policies and commons, and the proletarians and women require a multitude of forms of mutual insurance.
[W]e succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, but we failed to create a market for commons because the enlightenment fallacy in the french, german, jewish and anglo models all sought majority rule (numbers) in order to seize power (all power) from the martial and landed aristocracy.
The problem is monopoly. Even monopoly under democracy. It is not government per se. Since commons are as desirable as are businesses and industries. The problems are (a) that under monopoly (majority rule) classes cannot construct (measurable honest) trades. And (b) that ascent (voting) creates opportunity for rents, rather than criticism (legal suit), which prevents parasitism.
But counter to the suggestion that ceremony is frivolous, the demonstrated evidence in all social orders from civic associations, to communes, to cults, to governments, and to religions, is that the higher the cost of ritual, the more permanent the behavioral investment in the association.
Monarchy lacked numbers, and a solution to the ascent of the middle class. It was a technological failure that brought down the monarchies. Not only their incessant warfare. The solution was to create a market for commons, while retaining rule of law in the monarchy. Instead, we ended up with ‘government’ monopoly conflating law (conservative), commons(libertarian), and morality(progressive).
This error mandated the success of the progressives, since undesirable women plus beta males outnumber conservative and libertarian males.
[T]he monarchies created markets by imposing unwanted pacifism on the peoples – for profit. It was an exceptionally rewarding business. And an exceptionally rewarding business for mankind. But as our productivity increased and our desire for consumption increased, we failed to create a market for commons equal in productivity to the one we had created for goods and services.
So, restoration of paternalism: parenting society between generations, is to provide an institutional solution to the participation of nearly all in the markets for reproduction, the market for production, and the market for commons, while at the same time PROHIBITING violations of the one rule that makes reproductive, productive, and commons markets possible: the prohibition on parasitism articulated as rights of prosecution and restitution that we call ‘property rights’.
There is no other alternative that is known and possible and not in itself yet another immoral monopoly.
Every parasitic and forced transfer is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange.
The PATERNITY’s future is to use violence to raise the cost of the status quo such that it is cheaper to provide houses so that classes with different reproductive interests can conduct exchanges, than it is to maintain the monopoly of the proletarians and women that are destroying out civilization from within.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine / London UK.
(important piece) (challenge of the patriarchy)
[Y]our Charter. The demands of your revolution :
1) All cults (religions) require ceremony. They create enfranchisement. Mythology and ritual produce ownership. The more costly to the participants the mythology and ritual, the longer the group will persist, and the more impervious it is to competition. (This rule is invariant through history)
2) Those monarchies that have retained ceremony persist, and those that did not do not.
3) Those groups that maintain monarchies retain economic superiority over those that do not. (their governments are also often suicidal in no small part as a means of competing with the monarchy for power, which they rightfully see as a threat.)
4) The reason that the monarchies fell was that they failed to copy the British method of creating additional houses for newly enfranchised classes. The British failed to add a house of women, and one of proletarians. The Americans not only reversed the division of classes by directly electing the senate, but also failed to add new houses for proletarians and for women.
5) This error is reversible. The common law of property rights is universal to man (and any other sentient creature for that matter). the martial aristocracy requires martial and legal order, the productive aristocracy requires a multitude of trade policies and commons, and the proletarians and women require a multitude of forms of mutual insurance.
[W]e succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, but we failed to create a market for commons because the enlightenment fallacy in the french, german, jewish and anglo models all sought majority rule (numbers) in order to seize power (all power) from the martial and landed aristocracy.
The problem is monopoly. Even monopoly under democracy. It is not government per se. Since commons are as desirable as are businesses and industries. The problems are (a) that under monopoly (majority rule) classes cannot construct (measurable honest) trades. And (b) that ascent (voting) creates opportunity for rents, rather than criticism (legal suit), which prevents parasitism.
But counter to the suggestion that ceremony is frivolous, the demonstrated evidence in all social orders from civic associations, to communes, to cults, to governments, and to religions, is that the higher the cost of ritual, the more permanent the behavioral investment in the association.
Monarchy lacked numbers, and a solution to the ascent of the middle class. It was a technological failure that brought down the monarchies. Not only their incessant warfare. The solution was to create a market for commons, while retaining rule of law in the monarchy. Instead, we ended up with ‘government’ monopoly conflating law (conservative), commons(libertarian), and morality(progressive).
This error mandated the success of the progressives, since undesirable women plus beta males outnumber conservative and libertarian males.
[T]he monarchies created markets by imposing unwanted pacifism on the peoples – for profit. It was an exceptionally rewarding business. And an exceptionally rewarding business for mankind. But as our productivity increased and our desire for consumption increased, we failed to create a market for commons equal in productivity to the one we had created for goods and services.
So, restoration of paternalism: parenting society between generations, is to provide an institutional solution to the participation of nearly all in the markets for reproduction, the market for production, and the market for commons, while at the same time PROHIBITING violations of the one rule that makes reproductive, productive, and commons markets possible: the prohibition on parasitism articulated as rights of prosecution and restitution that we call ‘property rights’.
There is no other alternative that is known and possible and not in itself yet another immoral monopoly.
Every parasitic and forced transfer is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange.
The PATERNITY’s future is to use violence to raise the cost of the status quo such that it is cheaper to provide houses so that classes with different reproductive interests can conduct exchanges, than it is to maintain the monopoly of the proletarians and women that are destroying out civilization from within.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine / London UK.
[T]he trick for any government is not to do good things. It is to not do bad things. If it’s not bad it must be good. Ascent in the production of commons is illogical.We don’t need to approve contracts for commons. We need only adjudicate them if they create involuntary transfers. Democracy is an inversion of logic. We need juries, not legislatures.
[T]he trick for any government is not to do good things. It is to not do bad things. If it’s not bad it must be good. Ascent in the production of commons is illogical.We don’t need to approve contracts for commons. We need only adjudicate them if they create involuntary transfers. Democracy is an inversion of logic. We need juries, not legislatures.
OATH
Love all Others.
Speak only Truth.
Impose no Cost.
Strengthen the Body.
Master a Craft.
Fill the Mind.
Teach the Young.
Improve the Commons.
Contribute to Beauty.
Safeguard the Helpless.
Mete out Justice.
Punish the Wicked.
(Now its getting good…)
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 11:17:00 UTC