Meritocratic Power to the People from Illuminism & Propertarianism

Propertarianism is how you give the power to the people.

This isn’t the “muh power to the poeple!!” like we have experienced with communism and socialism and predatory capitalism which is merely absolute power to the dictator/corporations and slavery and death for everyone else; this isn’t the power for power’s sake and the power to rule only if you are the perfect political sociopath and psychopath and parasite.

No, this is the power of TRUTH, the power of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the power of Reason, the power of real science and not fake pseudoscience, given to every individual to rule with.

By establishing the basis of the rule of law through the entirely rational definition of Reciprocity and Property in-toto, by having to justify why something should be one way and not another in the light of how it actually tangibly scientifically affects somebody and society, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is thus CENTRALIZED as the core pillar of society and the nation’s psyche as a whole.

This is the power of truth to the people, for the people to rule with. This is an entire phase-space change in the psyche of man and of the society which adopts this. A phase change. This is currently the latent phase boundary where nothing is changing although lots and lots of more energy is building up inside. Eventually, the boundary is broken and the entire state of matter/mind/etc. changes to an entirely new and higher-order phase regime of physics where an entirely new set of rules now applies.

In this case the phase change marks a drastic reduction in entropy and disorder, a massive stoppage of the leaks of corruption, a brand new ultra-frictionless lubricant for the gears of law and societal interaction, a super-refined fuel for the rockets of the mind.

Propertarianism FAQs – How to Punish Parasites FOR PROFIT (and more…)

This entry was posted in Illuminism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Meritocratic Power to the People from Illuminism & Propertarianism

  1. I’ve been having a good think about how to actively achieve this without violent revolution. My biggest concern with John Marks and Curt Doolittle is their apparent fatalism in a coming Civil War (Societal war across the Western World?) They talk about separation and segregation from the Left, but seen out of ideas when it comes to actually getting to such a point peacefully.
    Looking at history, the US war of independence only succeeded because the Colonists had already implemented the society they wanted BEFORE the rebellion. So that the Declaration of Independence simply affirmed the society they wished to defend, not that which they wished to create from scratch. It was King George and the English Parliament’s attempt to increase control, not keep the Status Quo that sparked the rebellion.

    So the question becomes, how can we increase reciprocity and reduce lies and parasitism NOW?

    My thoughts are that we must first utilise the concept of energy density and higher flux in our battle for civilisation. At the moment we are spread thinly all over the globe and our energy is being ever further diluted by immigration and consensus democracy. Imagine if every Slayer and every Propertarian lived in one city or State. Imagine what laws would be passed to reduce parasitism and hold liars to account.

    Is this practical? Obviously not completely. Neither you or I is willing to simply up and move Continents. But focus IS the key. Truth density like energy denisty is the key to greater power. So identifying or creating pockets of control and places of concentrated Truth and accountability is key. Identifying where we currently have most of it and focusing political activism within the current system to get more of it, makes more sense than just turning everyone into doomsday preppers. To begin with we each start where we are. But which enclaves of Truth and freedom will flourish and atttact more people of honesty, I wonder? Now that we know what to defend against, immigration of people willing to defend against it, will become easier to select for and attract.

  2. Wicked,

    I like your phrase, “truth density”.

    At the moment, with regard to climate knowledge, we have “falsehood density” in major loci of power, such as US Congress, NASA, NOAA, major educational institutions, major elite science journals, major science organizations, and major international governing bodies (IPCC).

    The problem is that masses of divergent integrity are trying to co-exist on the same continent, unlike the US and England, before the Declaration of Independence, where a whole ocean physically separated the disagreeing masses.

    What we have now are small pockets of “truth density” that look like specs in the larger mass of falsehood.

  3. Christopher Marshall says:

    Doesn’t history prove that any government given too much power even with the best of intentions by it’s very nature of that power in turn will ultimately become corrupt? Look at the idea of the United States in the beginning pilgrims and Native Indians lived peacefully with each other and benefited each other in free trade. The intentions of the foundations of the U.S. was a nation for the people all property was to be owned by the people and for the people. The original intent was for the federal government to be an entity protecting our sovereign nation but as a general rule never interfering with the mundane day to day life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness without a reason. Look at it now.

    The Federal Formula:
    Good Intentions + Time= Corruption.
    Corruption + Time= Socialism.
    Socialism + Time= Communism.
    Communism + Time= Totalitarianism.
    Totalitarianism + Time= Civil War.
    Rinse & Repeat.

    The Free Market Formula:
    Good Intentions + Time= Small Business.
    Small Business + Time= Company.
    Company + Time= Corporation
    Corporation+ Time= Board.
    Board + Time= Corruption
    (The Board removes the original founder and steals the business for themselves.)

    Is this assessment cynical? Yes? Is it plausible? Very much so. Any entity (in my opinion) that becomes so large that it loses it’s identity will eventually become ambiguous in it’s morality. Look what happened to Eon Musk (a poor example perhaps) but he was booted from his own company if I’m not mistaken? Or did he keep it in the end?

  4. From a broader perspective:

  5. Here’s an attempt to give power to the stupid people:

    Click to access BILLS-116hr9ih.pdf

    What a piece of crap!

  6. Horrible evil idiots.

  7. Sunsettommy says:

    That bill is a stupid waste of time since Trump already said no over a year ago.

  8. sunsettommy says:

    Also America has done much better about those harmless CO2 emissions than Europe has. The arrogance and stupidity makes clear they want to hold America back so they the arrogant multiple starting wars nations of Europe can claim moral superiority.

    They are hypocritical jackasses!

  9. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that a bill passed by congress, with enough of a majority, would have the effect of overriding the President and giving the force of a formal treaty to the Paris crap.

    Let’s hope that enough of congress are still not so stupid. Even if House majority cleared it, I’m doubting that a Senate majority would clear it.

    But there seems to be a conundrum of timing: The US is already on the clock for withdrawing from Paris, and yet, during this time, a bill is being introduced that potentially could give treaty force to Paris commitments that Obama made WITHOUT congressional force.

    I don’t see how a treaty could be made out of it after the fact of its never being in treaty force to begin with, by way of a FORMER president sidestepping this little detail.

    If Paris is not formally binding, and we stay on schedule to get out of it, then I do not see how a bill referencing something that we are on schedule to get out of has any legitimacy at all. Seemingly, a whole new bill would have to be approved, first formally accepting Paris by congressional majority, and then another bill would have to be approved putting the now-formal-treaty into force.

  10. sunsettommy says:

    Congress has no power to make Treaties, that belongs to the President and the Senate, they can’t even override a treaty either, not since 1978 anyway:

  11. “Congress” includes the Senate, and this is what I was getting at — a bill can be introduced in the House, then in the Senate, and then, if the Senate approves, then treaty. The process has to start somewhere. For example, the so called “Green New Deal” was introduced both in the House and in the Senate. AOC sponsored it in the House, and I forgot who sponsored it in the Senate.

    Even though the Senate must be the overriding body that approves the treaty, the House can fashion legislation to put the treaty into effect. And so, I think the bill that I linked to shows a back-assword House attempt to make something happen that the Senate never passed, because Obama (the pres at the time) attempted to bypass the Senate with his agreement to the Paris Accord.

  12. sunsettommy says:

    Suggest that you look in the link because the HOUSE of Representatives are not on the treaty making list. it has always been the President and the Senate and nothing else.

  13. In the final analysis, yes, Senate and Pres. get the treaty into reality as the fundamental legal foundation.

    But how does a treaty get enacted into actual individual laws that fulfill it? House, I’m supposing.

  14. Christopher Marshall says:

    Obama tried bypassing this rule in a treaty he “re-vised” but was caught and it was shut down. That’s all I know about it besides it was to seize gun control and forfeit sovereign rights of the U.S.

  15. Robert says:

    Anyone read the illumnati’s latest coded novel by mark romel called the mistletoe murders? Curious what people thought? Thanka

  16. becomingabraxas says:

    I just finished my second book on the topic of Meritocracy and attempted to formalize the system so that there’s a unified reference point from which to update, change, elaborate on, agree with, and disagree with. I would really like your feedback.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s