A Historian’s Analysis of What Went Wrong

(Worth Repeating) The underlying question is ‘Why are western institutions so vulnerable to the female method of warfare against our institutions (Woke and Neocon) using credentialism and propaganda and baiting into hazard (finance, commerce, politics)?
Don’t apologize for the long post – it was a pleasure to read. And I can’t argue with it at all. It’s correct. some of the insights are more than correct – they’re uncommonly insightful for all of us to understand. I would say that yes, (a) all bureaucracies tend to evolve toward deceit. (b) yes your analysis of the post civil war period. (c) yes to the ‘managerial’ belief that the state could be managed like industry. yes to all of it. I’m trying to solve the problem, the big problem, of political deception of the people whether in the bureaucracy or out. To do that I need a science and logic of decidabiilty that can produce a test (organized protocol for decision making) that can be used in a court of law. In that process I’ve accidentally produced the science of lying as well as speaking truthfully (testifying). We can study the classical restoration in Europe, British empiricals, the protestants, the puritans, the enlightenment (at least empirical sects) and especially the MA-CT river valley political innovations that led to the formation of the founding theories, methods, and organizations. But … it wasn’t enough. it wasn’t enough because they couldn’t reduce what they were doing to a formality, the same way the marxists and the progressives reduced their theories to formalities. So I’m reducing it to a formality (a science, formal logic, of decidability, law, governmnet, economy, family, and society. The oddity is that they were right. They had removed more falsehood from the human mind than any other people in history – because polities were small. In order to scale polities we can either try desperately to indoctrinate by religious or philosophical means (via positiva teaching) or we can prohibit behavior (via negativa) by scientific and legal means. And strangely indoctrination into a fixed system of positive thought (the good) turns out to cause stagnation and decline: the slow spread of dark ages of ingorance. But by education in, and governancy by, and judicial rule by via-negativa means people will continuously re-organize to product positivas (goods) as needed in time and space, while the law (the science of cooperation – or rather, prohibition on non-cooperation, irreciprocity, parasitism, and predation) remains relatively constant, just increasing in precision, like all other ‘settled’ sciences. So when I read through your passage above, I realize it’s all correct. But the presumption we all make is rather interesting: we think via-positiva ideation, philosophy, ideology, and religion that tell us what is good, and teach us to be good, through imitating a presumed or established good, is in fact good. It’s not. It’s the reason the gains of the agrarian age was extinguished by 800ad and everyone who had been ‘civilized’ by the major religions had ceased development. In the case of Islam they destroyed the arts and knowledge of six great civilizations of the ancient world – all of which were more advanced. In other words, we presume we need a ‘way’, rather than a way not. We presume our religion matters, when it was our law that matters more. We presume that we are conscious actors, when in fact we are carrying a metaphysical set of presumptions (a group strategy conveyed as subtle values) that matters more. And that strategy is sovereignty. And sovereignty must lead to trifunctionalism. And trifuctionalism will lead to a market for competing ideas. And so we are successful in the west, despite our attempt to create via-positiva religion (children) and philosophy (adults), but limited by our via-negativa (law and metaphysics) that ensure the competition continues eternally without stagnating as long as religion(seduction), philosophy(choice), and command(authority) can never win the competition against the other two factions. So to maintain that competition and prevent any ‘sect’ from monopoly, I’m just codifying the science of cooperation that’s the foundation of our law, and expanding it so that it prohibits the new kind of criminality that arises as populations, economies, and institutions scale. We were right unconsciously – our metaphysics(group strategy). We were wrong consciously – or search for agency Everyone else was even more wrong because of both metaphysics and search for agency. How to make us conscious of our strategy? Write it as a science of cooperation: Law. I hope that was clear enough. But it’s a profound shift in our understanding. Why? what we do doesn’t matter as long as it’s not what we shouldnt do. ;).

Leave a Reply