Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • Lesson

    1. Eve’s apple, 2. Pandora’s box, 3. The 19th Amendment.

    Is it the fault of the female, or is it the fault of the male, for not having created laws to equally suppress the female interpersonal and social, superpredator, that they did to suppress the male physical and military, superpredator. One family one vote was a compromise. In the absence of one family one vote we require houses for men and women just as we required house for aristocracy, nobility, industry, and family. The animal just follows its instincts. It is up for those few men of ability to domesticate the animals. And we are always the few.

  • Lesson

    1. Eve’s apple, 2. Pandora’s box, 3. The 19th Amendment.

    Is it the fault of the female, or is it the fault of the male, for not having created laws to equally suppress the female interpersonal and social, superpredator, that they did to suppress the male physical and military, superpredator. One family one vote was a compromise. In the absence of one family one vote we require houses for men and women just as we required house for aristocracy, nobility, industry, and family. The animal just follows its instincts. It is up for those few men of ability to domesticate the animals. And we are always the few.

  • But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and

    But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/but-im-not-creating-a-popular-political-movement-im-creating-a-revolution-and-a-body-of-law/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:06:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253415062234034177

  • But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law

    BUT I’M NOT CREATING A POPULAR POLITICAL MOVEMENT I’M CREATING A REVOLUTION AND A BODY OF LAW (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)

    —“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford

    Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.

  • But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law

    BUT I’M NOT CREATING A POPULAR POLITICAL MOVEMENT I’M CREATING A REVOLUTION AND A BODY OF LAW (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)

    —“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford

    Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.

  • The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law

    The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/the-only-test-of-your-ideas-is-law/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:02:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253413855444602884

  • The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law

    (natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)

    [I]f you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.

  • The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law

    (natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)

    [I]f you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.