Theme: Religion

  • INQUISITION? (serious question) If we created a new inquisition to prosecute the

    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

  • Patriarchy: Your Mission is to Create A Market for Commons

    (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.

  • Patriarchy: Your Mission is to Create A Market for Commons

    (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.

  • #tcot #tlot #NRx The greatest lies in history have been produced philosophically

    #tcot #tlot #NRx The greatest lies in history have been produced philosophically: monotheism, marxism, freudianism, postmodernism.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:18:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623814386826788864

  • #tcot #nrx The Church then chartered nobility with love and trust – and left the

    #tcot #nrx The Church then chartered nobility with love and trust – and left them to war and justice (production). They federated our tribes


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 10:10:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623797175391252480

  • #tcot #nrx The Church manufactured idealism, and used Love to break kin and trib

    #tcot #nrx The Church manufactured idealism, and used Love to break kin and tribal biases, extending trust, and creating economic velocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 10:08:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623796680245276672

  • Religions evolved for the poor. Philosophy for the middle. And Law for the Rulin

    Religions evolved for the poor. Philosophy for the middle. And Law for the Ruling classes. The three metodologies reflect perceived control.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 09:23:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623785433286230016

  • Islam is a religion of submission, Christianity less so. But western Aristocracy

    Islam is a religion of submission, Christianity less so. But western Aristocracy is a cult of non-submission to man, government, or god.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 09:20:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623784797865930752

  • I don’t like analogies. They’re used to lie. Myths are analogies. But at least C

    I don’t like analogies. They’re used to lie. Myths are analogies. But at least Christianity’s myths teach us love, truthfulness and beauty.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 09:19:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623784423960518656

  • Religions Come In Many Forms

    [T]o act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.

    Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology. I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific.