Knowledge: Knowing what’s tragic about our current postmodern era, is not the same as knowing what was exceptional about the the modern, medieval, and ancient eras. The Incremental Suppression of Predation: Requires Property-en-toto, The Common law, Rule of Law, Universal Standing in matters of the commons, and an independent and professional Judiciary. Rule of Law: Governments cannot make law, only contracts within the law. All else is not Law, but dictate (command). The Art of Predation: Murder, Violence, Theft, Fraud, Extortion, Externalization, Free-Riding, Conspiracy, Displacement, and Conquest. The Era Of Deceit: The 20th Century will be remembered in intellectual history as an era of mysticism, pseudoscience, innumeracy, propaganda and deceit. The Left’s Program of Deceit: The only reason the left could complete its program of deceit was because we failed to protect the informational commons. Tragedy at each compass point: Progressive lying and theft, conservative ignorance and stupidity, and libertarian cluelessness. Tactics Must Remain Moral: We can morally adopt some of the tactics of the left (shaming). But we cannot adopt their lying The Lie of Non-Violence: There is nothing untrue, dishonest, and immoral in the application of violence for the purpose of restitution. Just the opposite. The Lie of Appeasement: Appeasement of competitors is merely taking a present discount at future cost to your civilization. It’s just theft. It’s deceitful. It’s immoral. Liar The Lie of Conviction: The difference between convenience and conviction is whether you obtain a discount or pay a cost. Anything else is just excuse. The Lie of Tolerance: You’re not showing tolerance. You’re failing to pay the high cost of defense. It is what it is. Liar. The Lie of Democracy: Democracy can choose between priorities in matters of equal interest, but not in matters of competing interest. That’s just majority tyranny, not choice. The Lie of Assent: Like democracy assent is dishonest. The honest question is whether any dissent is moral. Otherwise assent is just creating an mandatory opportunity for rent seeking. The Lie of Equality: Not only are we unequal in ability and interest, but male and female reproductive strategies while compatible are in conflict, and the classes while compatible are in competition. To state we are equal in ability or interest is simply a lie to justify the tyranny of majoritarianism, and by consequence parasitic and dysgenic proletarian rule to maintain a parasitic and entrenched and unaccountable monopoly bureaucracy. The Lie of Conflating individual Law and Familial Commons: The law (a negative) must be constructed for individuals because only individuals can act parasitically, the commons (a positive ) must be constructed for families because only families can reproduce. All else is mere parasitism off future generations. The Lie of Intergenerational Parasitism (rather than Intergenerational Cooperation): The Lie of Economic Innumeracy: — The Lie of Laundering and Pooling: — The Lie of Rallying and Shaming: — and many more…
Theme: Deception
-
A Catalogue of Lies
Knowledge: Knowing what’s tragic about our current postmodern era, is not the same as knowing what was exceptional about the the modern, medieval, and ancient eras. The Incremental Suppression of Predation: Requires Property-en-toto, The Common law, Rule of Law, Universal Standing in matters of the commons, and an independent and professional Judiciary. Rule of Law: Governments cannot make law, only contracts within the law. All else is not Law, but dictate (command). The Art of Predation: Murder, Violence, Theft, Fraud, Extortion, Externalization, Free-Riding, Conspiracy, Displacement, and Conquest. The Era Of Deceit: The 20th Century will be remembered in intellectual history as an era of mysticism, pseudoscience, innumeracy, propaganda and deceit. The Left’s Program of Deceit: The only reason the left could complete its program of deceit was because we failed to protect the informational commons. Tragedy at each compass point: Progressive lying and theft, conservative ignorance and stupidity, and libertarian cluelessness. Tactics Must Remain Moral: We can morally adopt some of the tactics of the left (shaming). But we cannot adopt their lying The Lie of Non-Violence: There is nothing untrue, dishonest, and immoral in the application of violence for the purpose of restitution. Just the opposite. The Lie of Appeasement: Appeasement of competitors is merely taking a present discount at future cost to your civilization. It’s just theft. It’s deceitful. It’s immoral. Liar The Lie of Conviction: The difference between convenience and conviction is whether you obtain a discount or pay a cost. Anything else is just excuse. The Lie of Tolerance: You’re not showing tolerance. You’re failing to pay the high cost of defense. It is what it is. Liar. The Lie of Democracy: Democracy can choose between priorities in matters of equal interest, but not in matters of competing interest. That’s just majority tyranny, not choice. The Lie of Assent: Like democracy assent is dishonest. The honest question is whether any dissent is moral. Otherwise assent is just creating an mandatory opportunity for rent seeking. The Lie of Equality: Not only are we unequal in ability and interest, but male and female reproductive strategies while compatible are in conflict, and the classes while compatible are in competition. To state we are equal in ability or interest is simply a lie to justify the tyranny of majoritarianism, and by consequence parasitic and dysgenic proletarian rule to maintain a parasitic and entrenched and unaccountable monopoly bureaucracy. The Lie of Conflating individual Law and Familial Commons: The law (a negative) must be constructed for individuals because only individuals can act parasitically, the commons (a positive ) must be constructed for families because only families can reproduce. All else is mere parasitism off future generations. The Lie of Intergenerational Parasitism (rather than Intergenerational Cooperation): The Lie of Economic Innumeracy: — The Lie of Laundering and Pooling: — The Lie of Rallying and Shaming: — and many more…
-
Q&A: Curt, Why Is Christianity Deceitful?
QUESTION: “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”
—“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—
ANSWER: [H]ave you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it. If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity. So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead. My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means. The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd. Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought. If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’? What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of. So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful. What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite? What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism? What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies? What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable? So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it. We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries. A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man. But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential – just as we were in the medieval era: “the dark ages”. Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
-
Q&A: Curt, Why Is Christianity Deceitful?
QUESTION: “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”
—“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—
ANSWER: [H]ave you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it. If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity. So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead. My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means. The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd. Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought. If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’? What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of. So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful. What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite? What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism? What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies? What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable? So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it. We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries. A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man. But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential – just as we were in the medieval era: “the dark ages”. Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
-
NOT THAT Y’ALL AREN”T DOING A GREAT JOB, I THOUGHT I’D CHIME IN AND SEE IF I CAN
NOT THAT Y’ALL AREN”T DOING A GREAT JOB, I THOUGHT I’D CHIME IN AND SEE IF I CAN HELP YOU IMPROVE YOUR ARGUMENTS A TAD.
(from reddit)
—“They insert themselves into Rothbard’s framework and make accusations that it wouldn’t work because it lacks their burdening collectivist auxiliary morality of social conformity, segregation and hubris.””—
Rothbardian ethics are copied from dualist (poly-moral, poly-logical) ghetto ethics: the ethics of the medieval ghetto of the diasporic jews. His ethics is limited to physical (intersubjectively verifiable) property because diasporic, pastoral, and trading peoples only POSSESS such property, and are unaccountable to and unavailable for retribution by the locals once they trade goods and move on.
For all intents and purposes this is identical to gypsy ethics except that gypsies – due to much lesser abilities – also practice theft, gambling, violence and prostitution.
Whereas agrarians must live with people that they have lied, cheated, defrauded, exported costs onto, and imposed various land costs upon, without paying the normative, monetary, physical, and martial costs of holding that territory, and carry blame and guilt for lying, pastoralists and semi-pastsoralists (Russians, Jews, Gypsies, Arabs, Iranians, Some Turks, and other steppe and desert tribes) universally demonstrate heroism for successful deceit, and blame the victim for his folly. They by consequence possess low trust polities with constant conflict and universally stunted economies.
Rothbard’s ethics seeks to preserve usury, blackmail, extortion, lying and cheating, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, rent seeking, and fraud.
He seeks to preserve justification for parasitic and unproductive exchanges. Again, this is not possible for landed people who will retaliate against offenders, and certainly not participate in or construct juries, nor tell the truth to, nor even tolerate in their midst.
Rothbard’s application of levantine pastoral dualist ethics to the liberty created by european aristocratic landed agrarian universalist ethics is merely another cover for preserving separatism and the parasitism that is advocated under dual ethical systems, and avoiding the costs that accompany holding territory from invaders who would impose alternative allocations of property, and alternative property rights, norms, laws, and status hierarchies upon them. These are costly arrangements to produce. Rothbard’s ethics seeks to avoid them. (See Walter Block’s justifications of all sorts of things humans demonstrably retaliate against because of the externalities produced by them.)
Rothbardian ethics CANNOT Produce an anarchic (voluntary, contractarian) polity because low trust societies universally and empirically demonstrate demand for authority to either suppress retaliation, or mandate rules of behavior. Instead, the definition of property necessary for the formation of a voluntary polity is that in which retaliation is suppressed. For retaliation to be suppressed, the law must protect all property that people will choose to retaliate against impositions upon. That means that ANYTHING people bear a cost to construct must be protected under a common law.
So no, rothbardian ethics cannot produce an anarchic polity, they can suit only gypsies and parasitic groups who seek to avoid the payments necessary to hold territory from competitors while at the same time engaging in parasitism on the host.
(continued…)
—“They use that criticism to propose a complete deconstruction of the Non-aggression principle, which they justify based on several lines of reasoning like differences among groups of individuals and economics. It looks like they try to overwhelm anyone with a wide array of topics.”—-
The NAP is a convenient Rothbardian lie (a half truth). One cannot aggress unless we define what one aggresses against. Rothbard defines property as that which is intersubjectively verifiable, and in doing so prohibits the formation of not only property rights themselves, which are a commons, but any and all commons. Yet at the same time, western civilization’s competitive strategy, is that by total suppression of parasitism, we force individuals into the market for production of goods and services, even to the extent of absolute nuclear families effectively abandoning their offspring upon maturity. So Rothbard seeks to advocate levantine pastoral morality which demonstrably demands authoritarian regimes, fosters constant internecine warfare, low trust, and poverty, while abandoning the high trust that makes commons and the multipliers that commons produce impossible. At the same time he legalizes unproductive transfers, and institutionalizes low trust and parasitism.
So the non aggression principle is a lie. Another bit of emotional fodder for useful idiots. It is true that aggression against ALL demonstrated property (that which humans defend) and all property that humans bear costs to acquire, is synonymous with the prohibition the imposition of costs that is necessary for the rational pursuit of cooperation in preference to conflict and predation, but for non aggression not be a rothbardian deception it must be defined as non-aggression against demonstrated property or as I refer to it “property=en-toto” not ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’. For this reason I (we) criticize the NAP as a deceitful half truth that relies upon western ethics to assume scope of property, while at the same time specifically licensing in law every possible means of theft other than physical takings and violence. The NAP as stated means NAP/IVP, whereas the only test of aggression as a basis for a social order is NON-Aggression against Property en toto (demonstrated property), that people will retaliate against the imposition of costs upon. (…continued)
As such the only ethical and moral rule by which we can preserve rational cooperation is that of the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property en toto, free of externalities of the same.
The only anarchic polity that is either rational or possible is that in which the common law prohibits impositions against a sufficient scope of demonstrated property that it is rational to choose an anarchic polity over an authoritarian or democratic humanist one.
The suite of Cosmopolitan movements include the left/Socialist, the right/neo-conservative, and the center/Libertine. All three of these movements have been a failure, and all are composed of half truths and half lies that prey upon western pathological altruism.
Westerners here the half truth and intuit it in their context. Libertines here the half and are aware the other half is an opportunity for parasitism.
The only liberty that is possible is the reciprocal insurance of property en toto under the common law, rule of law, property en toto, an independent judiciary and a jury of peers
—“Their supposed Aristocratic society seems more like a very restrictive set of moral rules applied to everyone according to gender and status, many of them related to reputation. They are very hostile to the Non-agression principle, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they propose expropriation or execution for people converting to other religions or marrying a foreigner.”—
The only restriction is that you may not act parasitically upon others, and must engage in productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria – the total prohibition on parasitism, and that you must pay the price of holding the territory from competitors who would alter those rules, property allocations, and structures of production. If you do not want to do that why should others either (a) permit you in their midst, or (b) not just kill you if you are such a parasite? It is hard for you to answer this question without admitting that you are a parasite with predatory preferences.
—“They are never straightforward to what their alleged Aristocratic society would look like. And they are ignorant how Anarcho-capitalism deals with reputation, public goods and general preferences of morality.”—
I don’t know how more straightforward you want us to be. Aristocracy: the reciprocal insurance of property en toto to all who would enter, and the prohibition on institution of government by other than that self same law.
Furthermore, there are no moral preferences. Morality is a universal and necessary rule under which it is rational for humans to cooperate: non parasitism: the non-imposition of costs on property en toto. We can circumvent this rule by contractual exchange, but a moral exchange renders the agreement moral. Morality is a universal rule, not a preference. Property en toto is both empirically observable, an evolutionary necessity and logically consistent in all cases. For morality to be preferential means that you wish to license parasitism upon others. Which is precisely what ghetto ethics evolved to do.
The first question of politics is why I prefer to cooperate rather than kill you. That is all that exists. If at any point cooperation is less beneficial than killing you, then killing you is logically preferable to cooperation. That is the origin of ethics: the preservation of cooperation. (which is a long discussion in itself.)
—“If anything, it seems like they develop a theory of how to attract people to a society based on social inequality, and they profoundly resent Rothbard for not enshrining social excellence higher than private property.”—
You attract people to a voluntary polity the same way we have attracted them to the west: through the formation of a high trust polity that prohibits all parasitism, from all walks of life, regardless of ‘preference’ or ‘strategy’, and in doing so produces disproportionate economic velocity, security, and prosperity.
To make that high trust polity we must eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state requires only that the common law suppress all impositions of costs upon others property en toto obtained by moral means.
We merely remove the statist era, return to the judicial, and prohibit violations of property en toto just as we did in the pre-state era.
One need not CONVINCE anyone to join a high trust polity. One need BELIEVE nothing. Because people just demonstrably FLOCK to it. Peers and parasites alike. Because a high trust community with pervasively useful commons defeats all competitors at least in the long run.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 12:30:00 UTC
-
Revolution: Threats by Which We Raise The Cost of the Status Quo
[R]EVOLUTION: THE THREAT: THE PROMISE: “THE BURNINGS”The Burnings: (a) the advocates of lying, deceit, and pseudoscience (people: public intellectuals) (b) the executors of lying, deceit, pseudoscience (bureaucrats) (b) the institutions of pseudoscience (academy, bureaucracy, media) (c) the works of pseudoscience (Freudianism, marxism, Keynesianism, postmodernism) (d) the advertising of ugliness, deceit, and pseudoscience (modern and postmodern art)
Burn the “Cathedral Complex” to ashes. It’s not just statues of Lenin and Stalin that need to be destroyed. It’s statues to lying, deceit, and pseudoscience: all the works of the “era of deceit” – the Pseudoscientific and postmodern period. That is how it is done. Crucifying, Impaling, Guillotining, Hanging, Breaking, and Burning. It’s a very clear, informationally dense message. The Albigensian solution: Eradicate the lies as the Egyptians eradicated monotheism, and as the Christians eradicated stoicism and polytheism; and as the church eradicated the Albigensians, and as the Marxists and socialists eradicated truth, goodness and beauty. End the tyranny of lies. Restore the Truthful Civilization: The Civic Society. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Revolution: Threats by Which We Raise The Cost of the Status Quo
[R]EVOLUTION: THE THREAT: THE PROMISE: “THE BURNINGS”The Burnings: (a) the advocates of lying, deceit, and pseudoscience (people: public intellectuals) (b) the executors of lying, deceit, pseudoscience (bureaucrats) (b) the institutions of pseudoscience (academy, bureaucracy, media) (c) the works of pseudoscience (Freudianism, marxism, Keynesianism, postmodernism) (d) the advertising of ugliness, deceit, and pseudoscience (modern and postmodern art)
Burn the “Cathedral Complex” to ashes. It’s not just statues of Lenin and Stalin that need to be destroyed. It’s statues to lying, deceit, and pseudoscience: all the works of the “era of deceit” – the Pseudoscientific and postmodern period. That is how it is done. Crucifying, Impaling, Guillotining, Hanging, Breaking, and Burning. It’s a very clear, informationally dense message. The Albigensian solution: Eradicate the lies as the Egyptians eradicated monotheism, and as the Christians eradicated stoicism and polytheism; and as the church eradicated the Albigensians, and as the Marxists and socialists eradicated truth, goodness and beauty. End the tyranny of lies. Restore the Truthful Civilization: The Civic Society. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Q&A: IS CHRISTIANITY DECEITFUL? QUESTION: “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’v
Q&A: IS CHRISTIANITY DECEITFUL?
QUESTION:
“Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”
—“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—
ANSWER:
Have you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it.
If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity.
So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead.
My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means.
The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd.
Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought.
If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’?
What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of.
So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful.
What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite?
What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism?
What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies?
What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable?
So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it.
We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries.
A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man.
But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential.
Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.
NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 10:35:00 UTC
-
That’s what progressives and postmoderns do, right? Lie? Reality by chanting? Tr
That’s what progressives and postmoderns do, right? Lie? Reality by chanting? Truth is truth. Lying is lying. Stop lying.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 10:32:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629238553625657344
Reply addressees: @AppleCiderRadio
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629238333135290368
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@AppleCiderRadio Science and truthful speech require that we categorize, contrast, value. Reality hurts? Sorry, but that’s no reason to lie.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/629238333135290368
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@AppleCiderRadio Science and truthful speech require that we categorize, contrast, value. Reality hurts? Sorry, but that’s no reason to lie.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/629238333135290368
-
THE GREAT ERROR AND THE GREAT LIE TO COMPENSATE FOR IT. (important piece) (solut
THE GREAT ERROR AND THE GREAT LIE TO COMPENSATE FOR IT.
(important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
America was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot.
The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men.
The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law.
Everyone else is a free rider.
The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights.
The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests.
And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders.
All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing.
But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history.
And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so.
This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.
Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960.
But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death.
All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 04:39:00 UTC