Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Learning P Focus on: (a) The west’s group strategy of a universal militia, sovre

    Learning P

    Focus on:

    (a) The west’s group strategy of a universal militia, sovreignty, reciprocity, markets and natural law.

    (b) Our P-amendments to the constitution to restore the constitution, our way of life, and western civlization.

    (c) the basics of reciprocity and testimony

    (d) How to understand and defeat the sophisms and deceits.

    Everything else is technical.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 14:33:00 UTC

  • YOU SEE…. What’s the difference between the American Constitution and the P-co

    YOU SEE…. What’s the difference between the American Constitution and the P-constitution? Clarity. I plugged holes.

    All we have to do is say “It is time for all good men to come to the defense of the constitution….”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 13:40:00 UTC

  • LESSON 1. Eve’s apple, 2. Pandora’s box, 3. The 19th Amendment. Is it the fault

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 21:41:00 UTC

  • PSYCHOLOGIZING (FRAUD), PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE), AND LAW (TRUTH) —“Regading

    PSYCHOLOGIZING (FRAUD), PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE), AND LAW (TRUTH)

    —“Regading 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

    0. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.

    1. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.

    2. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.

    3. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.

    4. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.

    5. 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,

    3. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

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

    —Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 15:28:00 UTC

  • Look you want to call people nazis by pulling random nonsense out of your a– th

    Look you want to call people nazis by pulling random nonsense out of your a– then go ahead but don’t waste my time. P-law is an evolution of european, british, american constitutional law that suppresses the innovations in deceit in public speech during the 20th.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 19:05:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246876566346518528

    Reply addressees: @Ariakvs

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246875132145983488

  • Apr 4, 2020, 7:31 PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_ActUpdated Apr 4, 2020, 7:31 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 19:31:00 UTC

  • “I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is

    —“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton

    That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech.

    Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.

    —“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton

    Being wrong, or failing due diligence?

    You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault.

    This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention.

    Means motive and opportunity.

    We cannot know intent.

    We can however know due diligence.

    Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:33:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME Propertarianism is just a brand name for

    “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME

    Propertarianism is just a brand name for strictly constructed traditional anglo american constitutional law, that is an evolution of our law, that prevents the (((crimes))) invented during the twentieth century, that were used to undermine western civlization. “Propertarian” was an ‘insult’ that was levied against libertarians who reduced all questions of social science to measurement by property. Fortunately, all questions of social science, ethics and law, really are reducible to measurement by demonstrated interest that we call property. But, property, at least under our definition, is complete where under libertarianism it was insufficient. I chose the name “propertarianism” because it maintained this system of measurement, and “strictly constructed natural law of reciprocity” was too difficult a brand name. At this point I would change it to Sovereignty, or “European Traditional Natural Law.” or something else. But the ‘term’ has stuck as a brand name so it’s hard to change it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 15:40:00 UTC

  • The need for collective punishment is to return to ingroup members demand to pol

    The need for collective punishment is to return to ingroup members demand to police their own. Most corp criminality would be solved this way.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-30 12:04:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244596272461492226

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244594679787765761

  • Three questions of law: Restitution > Punishment > Prevention. For something of

    Three questions of law: Restitution > Punishment > Prevention. For something of this nature? Restitution is apology(humiliation) by everyone in the organization (collective punishment); 10x (many times); Punishment Fine everyone in the organization. Prevent:audit everyone x yrs.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-30 12:02:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244595944831803392

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244594679787765761