Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • Tri-Partism and The Tri-Functional Hypothesis of Our Natural Gods, and Our Natural Religion

    (mandatory understanding on IE origins of Market Gods) (compare with the Monopoly of semitic underclass gods)

    [T]he Trifunctional Hypothesis of prehistoric Proto-Indo-European society postulates a tripartite ideology (“idéologie tripartite”) reflected in the existence of three classes or castes—priests, warriors, and commoners (farmers or tradesmen)—corresponding to the three functions of the sacral, the martial and the economic, respectively. The trifunctional thesis is primarily associated with the French mythographer Georges Dumézil, who proposed it in 1929 in the book Flamen-Brahman, and later in Mitra-Varuna. According to Dumézil (1898–1986), Proto-Indo-European society comprised three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions:

    1. Sovereignty, which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts:
      … 1.1 one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly;
      … 1.2 the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world.
    2. Military, connected with force, the military and war.
    3. Productivity, herding, farming, and crafts; ruled by the other two.

    In the Proto-Indo-European mythology, each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group. Many such divisions occur in the history of Indo-European societies: Southern Russia: Bernard Sergent associates the Indo-European language family with certain archaeological cultures in Southern Russia and reconstructs an Indo-European religion based upon the tripartite functions. Early Germanic society: The supposed division between the king, nobility and regular freemen in early Germanic society. Norse mythology: Odin (sovereignty), Týr (law and justice), the Vanir (fertility). Odin is assigned one of the core functions in the Indo-European pantheon as a representative of the first function (sovereignty) corresponding to the Hindu Varuṇa (fury and magic) as opposed to Týr, who corresponds to the Hindu Mitrá (law and justice); while the Vanir represent the third function (fertility). Odin has been also been interpreted as a death-god (“Psychopomp”: transporting us to the afterlife) and connected to cremations, and has also been associated with ecstatic practices. Classic Greece: The three divisions of the ideal society as described by Socrates in Plato’s The Republic. Bernard Sergent examined the trifunctional hypothesis in Greek epic, lyric and dramatic poetry. India: The three Hindu castes, the Brahmins or priests; the Kshatriya, the warriors and military; and the Vaishya, the agriculturalists, cattle rearers and traders. The Shudra, a fourth Indian caste, is a peasant or serf. A 2001 study found that the genetic affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans whereas lower castes are more like Asians. The researchers believe that the Indo-European speakers entered India from the Northwest, mixing with or displacing proto-Dravidian speakers, and may have established a caste system with themselves primarily in higher castes. TRIPLE (TRIPARTITE) DEITIES A triple deity (sometimes referred to as threefold, tripled, triplicate, tripartite, triune or triadic, or as a trinity) is three deities that are worshipped as one. Such deities are common throughout world mythology; the number three has a long history of mythical associations. Carl Jung considered the arrangement of deities into triplets an archetype in the history of religion. In classical religious iconography or mythological art, three separate beings may represent either a triad who always appear as a group (Greek Moirai, Charites, Erinyes; Norse Norns; or the Irish Morrígan) or a single deity known from literary sources as having three aspects (Greek Hecate, Roman Diana). THE INDO EUROPEAN ORIGINS OF TRIPARTISM, TRIFUNCTIONALISM, TRIPLE GODS, AND TERNARY LOGIC Georges Dumézil’s trifunctional hypothesis proposed that ancient Indo-European society conceived itself as structured around three activities: worship, war, and toil. In later times, when slave labor became common, the three functions came to be seen as separate “classes”, represented each by its own god. Dumézil understood this mythology as reflecting and validating social structures in its content: such a tripartite class system is found in ancient Indian, Iranian, Greek and Celtic texts. In 1970, Dumézil proposed that some goddesses represented these three qualities as different aspects or epithets and identified examples in his interpretation of various deities including the Iranian Anāhitā, the Vedic Sarasvatī and the Roman Juno. Vesna Petreska posits that myths including trinities of female mythical beings from Central and Eastern European cultures may be evidence for an Indo-European belief in trimutive female “spinners” of destiny. But according to the linguist M. L. West, various female deities and mythological figures in Europe show the influence of pre-Indo-European goddess-worship, and triple female fate divinities, typically “spinners” of destiny, are attested all over Europe and in Bronze Age Anatolia. POST BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE CULTURES Ancient Celtic cultures The Matres or Matronae are usually represented as a group of three but sometimes with as many as 27 (3 × 3 × 3) inscriptions. They were associated with motherhood and fertility. Inscriptions to these deities have been found in Gaul, Spain, Italy, the Rhineland and Britain, as their worship was carried by Roman soldiery dating from the mid 1st century to the 3rd century AD.[24] Miranda Green observes that “triplism” reflects a way of “expressing the divine rather than presentation of specific god-types. Triads or triple beings are ubiquitous in the Welsh and Irish mythic imagery” (she gives examples including the Irish battle-furies, Macha, and Brigit). “The religious iconographic repertoire of Gaul and Britain during the Roman period includes a wide range of triple forms: the most common triadic depiction is that of the triple mother goddess” (she lists numerous examples).[25] In the case of the Irish Brigid it can be ambiguous whether she is a single goddess or three sisters, all named Brigid.[26] The Morrígan also appears sometimes as one being, and at other times as three sisters,[27][28][29][30] as do the three Irish goddesses of sovereignty, Ériu, Fódla and Banba.[31] Hinduism In Hinduism, the supreme divinity Para Brahman can take the form of the Trimurti, in which the cosmic functions of creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe are performed by the three deities of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer), who are at the same time three forms of the one Para Brahman.[32] The divine being Dattatreya is a representation of all three of these deities incarnated as a single being.[33] Christianity (the trinity) Christians profess “one God in three divine persons” (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). This is not to be understood as a belief in (or worship of) three Gods, nor as a belief that there are three subjectively-perceived “aspects” in one God, both of which the Catholic Church condemns as heresy. The Catholic Church also rejects the notions that God is “composed” of its three persons and that “God” is a genus containing the three persons. The Gnostic text Trimorphic Protennoia presents a threefold discourse of the three forms of Divine Thought: the Father, the Son, and the Mother (Sophia). Many Christian saints, especially martyrs, are trios who share a feast day or other remembrance. (See Category:Saints trios.) Whether they are subject to actual veneration and prayed to for supernatural aid, or simply honored, varies by Christian denomination. ESTATES OF THE REALM A 13th-century French representation of the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages – Oratores (“those who pray”), Bellatores (“those who fight”), and Laboratores (“those who work”). The estates of the realm, or three estates, were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the medieval period to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time. The best-known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). Monarchy was for the king and the queen and this system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (the Second Estate), and peasants and bourgeoisie (the Third Estate). In some regions, notably Scandinavia and Russia, burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners were split into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. Furthermore, the non-landowning poor could be left outside the estates, leaving them without political rights. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and clergy into one lordly estate with “commons” as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), knights, and burghers was used. In Scotland, the Three Estates were the Clergy (First Estate), Nobility (Second Estate), and Shire Commissioners, or “burghers” (Third Estate), representing the bourgeois, middle class, and lower class. The Estates made up a Scottish Parliament. TRIPARTISM (COOPERATIONISM, MARKETS) IN PROPERTARIANISM In P we begin with the three means of coercion: Force-Defense, Remuneration-Deprivation, and Inclusion-Undermining (ostracization) in a market preserved by the judiciary. We argue that the three classes developed three ‘market competitions’ for elites; martial-judicial, priestly-educational, and productive-labor and trade. These three sets of elites we recognize as Conservative-Capitalizing (force), Progressive-consuming(Undermining), and Libertarian-Productive (Trade). In P we restore the “cooperation between the compatible but unequal classes”: The Monarchy as judge of last resort, The Judiciary as preservation of sovereignty, the Senate (nobility) as territorial (tribal) interests, the Upper House as the Commercial Interests, and the Lower House as Family and Labor Interests. Under this interpretation, Christianity is migrating to its natural place as the feminine (forgiveness, love), while we are restoring our traditional gods as we try to restore our civilization after the Abrahamic dark ages of death and decline. LEARN MORE This info is collected from Wikipedia but read Dumezil or at least the spark notes version. 😉 If you understand Dumizel’s description of, Campbell’s Monomyth, and the nordic myths you can begin to reconstruct our natural religions in both northern second generation and southern European first-generation forms.

  • Civilizational Differences in Strategy and Conflict

    CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN STRATEGY AND CONFLICT(very important) (summary)

    (Warning: This is the most important subject of our age, but it might trigger (offend) you so please move on if having your sacred cows slaughtered by science is unacceptable.)

    [P]re-marine-trade Europeans like all other peoples didn’t have writing – few people did. Writing requires the evolution of debt-trade and taxation. The population density of territorial regions, the rate of production of territorial areas, and the cost of political control, all inhibit it, which is why the river valleys and the coasts developed writing. The europeans like all people, had oral history. Although it is most interesting that the europeans seem to have invented history as we understand it. The Atlantics, the Mediterraneans, the indo europeans, the beaker people, the Germanics, and certainly the Celts had oral history and had an industry for training their priesthood. The jews had history, and didn’t write it down, because of the prestige of memorizing it (just like europeans), and only wrote it down under advice, question, or command of the greeks. Like the dictionary froze english spelling, writing froze jewish, then christian, then islamic dogma. This isn’t the same for european, Indian, or Chines thought which was advice (wisdom literature) not command (authoritarian literature). Besides the universal lying and face before truth of the semitic tribal peoples, and this authoritarian literature, the middle east developed jewish pilpul and critique (lying) and muslim recitation and stagnation (avoidance of adaptation). The Chinese pursued harmony of their wisdom literature which limited their adaptation, and they followed sun tzu in war by delay and deceit, and their culture followed. The Iranic branch in India (Hindus) could not (as is happening to Americans) rule such a vast population of lower classes, and so chose a corporeal organization of class roles – a military organization familiar to the iranics, replicating the class structure of warriors, priests, and workers, each with different responsibilities. The Chinese had chosen hierarchical family, and europeans had chosen a hierarchical military. The Jewish-Palestinian-Arab semites chose universal resistance to all forms of aristocracy including the Egyptian by the adoption of universal slave resistance as a strategy. This failure to produce a durable military still plagues the jewish- Palestinian and less so Arab (raiding) peoples today. The jews in particular because they have neither the ethical tradition of land holders (and cant hold land) nor the ethical tradition of a working class (who fight) or an ethical tradition of a market between the elites. Which is why we wanted to move all jews to Israel, making a Netherlands of the middle east that may drag the primitive peoples out of authoritarian monopoly slave-resistance into market modernity – AND insulate us from jewish and muslim undermining at the same time. The Chinese strategy of course is to eradicate islam by incremental domestication of the muslim people and prohibiting entry of the jewish people. There is no force in Asia that can compete with Chinese domestication of other peoples. They have been doing it for thousands of years. The Europeans, having conquered the continent by military and technological means, had the pressure of a small population using maneuver, adaptation, technology, and a universal voluntary and therefore entrepreneurial military to produce a hierarchy – and produced as a consequence an entrepreneurial wisdom literature of markets including technology(science), law, philosophy, theology that competed with one another under their only immutable strategy – the sovereignty of the entrepreneurial warrior. Europeans maneuver, adapt, and invent with small number , Chinese resist and defeat by delay and deceive using numbers, semites deceive seduce with false promise and undermine and weaken – and the muslims consume and destroy, and Indians ignore because they are unconquerable by other than a cancer like islam – and get temporarily conquered by every passing malcontent even if they have the most beautiful of cultures and religions for the average person (except for the filth and irresponsibility for the commons). So as usual, when comparing civilizations we don’t disambiguate the truth-telling-empirical races, from the delay and deceive races, from the lying races – which is the entire purpose of my work. Ending abrahamic method of lying by jewish, christian, muslim generation-one theology, and marxism, cultural marxism, postmodern, feminism, denialism, by abrahamic generation-two pseudoscience and sophism. Because lying – especially baiting into hazard and undermining, are (empirically) easier and more profitable, as we can see from financial, insurance, gambling, advertising, media, entertainment, pornography, ad education – all of which allow undermining host peoples by false promise, absent warranty, under claims of plausible deniability of innocence. Which is where the Ashkenazi Jews have specialized: in every single form of profiting by false promise, baiting into hazard, – because that is the group strategy, just like every other group strategy I’ve mentioned above. And this is why the Ashkenazi were the most literate people in Europe but contributed absolutely nothing to thought, politics, law, technology, medicine, science, or arts until baited into the franchise in exchange for adopting european Aristotelian if not christian ethics – and failed. And its why they were kicked out of Egypt and every other host civilization; why they lost their territory and were dispersed, and why they have been systematically removed from every host population once they become intolerable by achieving critical mass of influence on the people and can no longer deny their strategy. This is the scientific basis of the conflict of civilizations including the conflict between jewish and muslim civilizations and EVERY OTHER civlization on this earth. Yet no matter what opportunity every people give the jews and muslims the outcome is the same – neither jews nor muslims adapt. Because that is the nature of their authoritarian monopoly parasitic group strategy: slave resistance that preys on the social and economic orders of aristocratic meritocratic people until they are reduced to genetic, institutional, political, cultural, normative, economic and military ruin – it is the strategy of uncontrolled dysgenic growth used by cancers. And the only ‘cure’ for this method of deceit is the light of truth and the law to punish it in a via-negativa market for the continuous suppression of profit by plausible deniability of accountability. The worst you can say about europeans is that we dragged humanity out of tyranny, rent seeking, free riding, deceit, ignorance, superstition, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of an uncaring nature – but could have done it better. That’s the worst you can say. That is not the worst we can say for the semitic dark ages and 1billion dead in the ancient world, and 100M dead in just this past century and a half, and we still are not ‘cured’ of this second attempt at another semitic dark age. We have domesticated and Germanicized Christianity – but we must make it impossible for the Jews and Muslims to create another dark age for mankind. My hope is that we cure both physical and informational cancers in this century. And I’m doing my part for the latter by extending the law to prohibit these forms of crime. People have very little agency. We are trial and error gene computers with firmware that imitates others, evolving software for no purpose other than negotiation with others – and what little agency we have is determined by the limits of whatever it is we learn by imitation and negotiation. Very, very, few of us transcend the animal from semi-consciousness to consciousness. The result of doing so – is love for man like we love our domesticated animals, pets, and children. “all we can do is help them. we are too few to do much else.”

  • Civilizational Differences in Strategy and Conflict

    CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN STRATEGY AND CONFLICT(very important) (summary)

    (Warning: This is the most important subject of our age, but it might trigger (offend) you so please move on if having your sacred cows slaughtered by science is unacceptable.)

    [P]re-marine-trade Europeans like all other peoples didn’t have writing – few people did. Writing requires the evolution of debt-trade and taxation. The population density of territorial regions, the rate of production of territorial areas, and the cost of political control, all inhibit it, which is why the river valleys and the coasts developed writing. The europeans like all people, had oral history. Although it is most interesting that the europeans seem to have invented history as we understand it. The Atlantics, the Mediterraneans, the indo europeans, the beaker people, the Germanics, and certainly the Celts had oral history and had an industry for training their priesthood. The jews had history, and didn’t write it down, because of the prestige of memorizing it (just like europeans), and only wrote it down under advice, question, or command of the greeks. Like the dictionary froze english spelling, writing froze jewish, then christian, then islamic dogma. This isn’t the same for european, Indian, or Chines thought which was advice (wisdom literature) not command (authoritarian literature). Besides the universal lying and face before truth of the semitic tribal peoples, and this authoritarian literature, the middle east developed jewish pilpul and critique (lying) and muslim recitation and stagnation (avoidance of adaptation). The Chinese pursued harmony of their wisdom literature which limited their adaptation, and they followed sun tzu in war by delay and deceit, and their culture followed. The Iranic branch in India (Hindus) could not (as is happening to Americans) rule such a vast population of lower classes, and so chose a corporeal organization of class roles – a military organization familiar to the iranics, replicating the class structure of warriors, priests, and workers, each with different responsibilities. The Chinese had chosen hierarchical family, and europeans had chosen a hierarchical military. The Jewish-Palestinian-Arab semites chose universal resistance to all forms of aristocracy including the Egyptian by the adoption of universal slave resistance as a strategy. This failure to produce a durable military still plagues the jewish- Palestinian and less so Arab (raiding) peoples today. The jews in particular because they have neither the ethical tradition of land holders (and cant hold land) nor the ethical tradition of a working class (who fight) or an ethical tradition of a market between the elites. Which is why we wanted to move all jews to Israel, making a Netherlands of the middle east that may drag the primitive peoples out of authoritarian monopoly slave-resistance into market modernity – AND insulate us from jewish and muslim undermining at the same time. The Chinese strategy of course is to eradicate islam by incremental domestication of the muslim people and prohibiting entry of the jewish people. There is no force in Asia that can compete with Chinese domestication of other peoples. They have been doing it for thousands of years. The Europeans, having conquered the continent by military and technological means, had the pressure of a small population using maneuver, adaptation, technology, and a universal voluntary and therefore entrepreneurial military to produce a hierarchy – and produced as a consequence an entrepreneurial wisdom literature of markets including technology(science), law, philosophy, theology that competed with one another under their only immutable strategy – the sovereignty of the entrepreneurial warrior. Europeans maneuver, adapt, and invent with small number , Chinese resist and defeat by delay and deceive using numbers, semites deceive seduce with false promise and undermine and weaken – and the muslims consume and destroy, and Indians ignore because they are unconquerable by other than a cancer like islam – and get temporarily conquered by every passing malcontent even if they have the most beautiful of cultures and religions for the average person (except for the filth and irresponsibility for the commons). So as usual, when comparing civilizations we don’t disambiguate the truth-telling-empirical races, from the delay and deceive races, from the lying races – which is the entire purpose of my work. Ending abrahamic method of lying by jewish, christian, muslim generation-one theology, and marxism, cultural marxism, postmodern, feminism, denialism, by abrahamic generation-two pseudoscience and sophism. Because lying – especially baiting into hazard and undermining, are (empirically) easier and more profitable, as we can see from financial, insurance, gambling, advertising, media, entertainment, pornography, ad education – all of which allow undermining host peoples by false promise, absent warranty, under claims of plausible deniability of innocence. Which is where the Ashkenazi Jews have specialized: in every single form of profiting by false promise, baiting into hazard, – because that is the group strategy, just like every other group strategy I’ve mentioned above. And this is why the Ashkenazi were the most literate people in Europe but contributed absolutely nothing to thought, politics, law, technology, medicine, science, or arts until baited into the franchise in exchange for adopting european Aristotelian if not christian ethics – and failed. And its why they were kicked out of Egypt and every other host civilization; why they lost their territory and were dispersed, and why they have been systematically removed from every host population once they become intolerable by achieving critical mass of influence on the people and can no longer deny their strategy. This is the scientific basis of the conflict of civilizations including the conflict between jewish and muslim civilizations and EVERY OTHER civlization on this earth. Yet no matter what opportunity every people give the jews and muslims the outcome is the same – neither jews nor muslims adapt. Because that is the nature of their authoritarian monopoly parasitic group strategy: slave resistance that preys on the social and economic orders of aristocratic meritocratic people until they are reduced to genetic, institutional, political, cultural, normative, economic and military ruin – it is the strategy of uncontrolled dysgenic growth used by cancers. And the only ‘cure’ for this method of deceit is the light of truth and the law to punish it in a via-negativa market for the continuous suppression of profit by plausible deniability of accountability. The worst you can say about europeans is that we dragged humanity out of tyranny, rent seeking, free riding, deceit, ignorance, superstition, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of an uncaring nature – but could have done it better. That’s the worst you can say. That is not the worst we can say for the semitic dark ages and 1billion dead in the ancient world, and 100M dead in just this past century and a half, and we still are not ‘cured’ of this second attempt at another semitic dark age. We have domesticated and Germanicized Christianity – but we must make it impossible for the Jews and Muslims to create another dark age for mankind. My hope is that we cure both physical and informational cancers in this century. And I’m doing my part for the latter by extending the law to prohibit these forms of crime. People have very little agency. We are trial and error gene computers with firmware that imitates others, evolving software for no purpose other than negotiation with others – and what little agency we have is determined by the limits of whatever it is we learn by imitation and negotiation. Very, very, few of us transcend the animal from semi-consciousness to consciousness. The result of doing so – is love for man like we love our domesticated animals, pets, and children. “all we can do is help them. we are too few to do much else.”

  • CHOOSE, A SECOND FALL OF ROME, OR THE CARTHAGINIAN WAR? (important) (core) 1) So

    CHOOSE, A SECOND FALL OF ROME, OR THE CARTHAGINIAN WAR?

    (important) (core)

    1) So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again?

    2) I think of racists as solving the obvious problem by the simplest means that they can imagine – but one that easily fails. People’s sensitivity changes under duress. So you must increase duress in order to reduce their tolerance to threats. This is how a general thinks about a strategic problem. Minimum force here, to cause minimum resistance there, for maximum consequence over there,

    3) P was purely conservative libertarian. Race based people came to P when I stated that the science is clear that the optimum social order is ethnocentrism, the optimum political order rule of law, and the optimum ethic christian because it is compatible and enhances via negativa natural law into a via-positiva advantage. In P I didn’t even consider race as a motivator. I just stated that if you want a wealthy, competitive, commons producing, highly redistributive, high trust polity that continues the western tradition you need to restore the market for polities with rule of law and many small polities each producing commons needed by that body of people given the differences in our abilities, rates, and depths of maturity and genetic load.

    4) If you search my site you will find (a) a decade of my argument stating that conflict is largely one of the primacy of loyalty to kin because of the advantage of kin cooperation, with the problem being differences in class sizes between the races and tribes, with whites and east asians producing the best genetic distribution with the least genetic load (bad genes). And (b) that the primary conflict is one over natural status conflicts given the differing demands for commons – including that of normative behavior – between different groups with different rates and depths of sexual matureity and different class sizes. So my argument was that ending segregation was not only a catastrophic failure, not only destroyed the nascent black middle class leadership, but forced the abandonment of the black underclass. This is not dissimilar to the hispanic-indian-black divide in south america (that like mexico at its core is often still amerindian).

    5) I think sh-t thru. So I am aware that all political movements move from the fringe where they depend on very radical very dissatisfied, and often mentally troubled individuals, through ‘generatons’ until they reach enough people to obtain power. I have done the same with P by attacking and undermining the jewish libertarians, then providing a home for the hard right while undermining the swastika ideology and replacing it with the hard science of economics and biology, and I have been working on neutralizing the feminism of the christian right that like women operates under the pretense of needing their approval on their terms, rather than that they need a means of survival and competition in the generations to come but that christianity is scientifically ‘right’ as far as christian ethics – and that I have an answer to the institutionalization of that ethic by embodying it in law. At present john and I together took a gamble last year (and I risked the whole movement) that we could move directly to the revolutionary message, and eventually an anti-left constitutional convention, from there to the certain threat of civil war, while trump was still in office. Right now I think we have to demonstrate (YET AGAIN) that I am right, and that it is with science, reason, evidence, and the law, expressed in our rights to self determination, and to state openly and truthully the superiority of our civilization, and its rescue of man. And that we need to correctly identify the enemy as the financial and political sector. and that the returns on ‘correcting past crimes’ will produce a renaissance not only for our people but for the world and for mankind – or else another dark age. If we do this successfully, there will be no resistance from even the middle, and only resistance from the political and financial sector and hard leftists, and dependent immigrants. How we conduct that war is something I am absolutely confident in and know how to win. It is actually a matter of choosing a strategy from the number I have in my head. All of them will produce such horrific pressure not only on our government but on the rest of the world, that it will be increasingly hard for anyone other than our unwanted immigrants in blue cities and the new mexico-invasion, that to resist the solution. That solution will provide a peaceful transitional means while preserving the strength of the military and the continental defense. Conversely, with resistance we would make a certain union general’s destruction of the south, and isis’ destruction of Syria/Iraq look like a visit from father christmas. (Just one example. What would Mexico do if certain things started happening? What would the largest military base in the states be occupied with? This is how you strategically think about war. Small pressures that create large pressures from elsewhere.)

    6) “All who bleed with me will be my brother in war.” After war, we will naturally sort by our kin as all people do when advantageous, and try to ‘associate or mate upward or downward’ to capture better opportunities if the kin group is not in your interest. The objective being obtaining the ability to voluntarily associate or disassociate as our preference demands. So my understanding is that:

    (a) all of us who want to be left alone so to speak to build a middle class majority polity will get a long just fine as long as we can separate into polities or neighborhoods;

    (b) if we limit our political order to those people wanting a middle class majority polity, then the racial differences will largely ameliorate because most differences that cause conflict are the difference in class sizes between the races on the one hand, and the group strategy of other tribes, races, sub-races being destructive on the other.

    (c) therefore given the vast demographic differences between the races we would end up with a very white polity with minorities, all whom agree to rule of law, and all whom operate under rule of law. And if we can produce commons suitable to our kin we will be fine. I suspect that over time we will re-sort into small nation states if only to limit competition.

    (d) the only problem then is really eliminating falsehood and irreciprocity and letting market forces do their thing., Why? We (and some east asians) appear to be the only people who can do it.

    We could have fixed this politically in 92 at the latest. Now we have to fix it militarily, and this is our last chance to do it before the second fall of the roman empire.

    So will you go down in history as the second fall of Rome? Or will you go down as Rome defeating Carthage and salting the earth so it can never rise again?

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 11:09:00 UTC

  • THE END OF DEMOCRACY? OR A SECOND DARK AGE.

    [W]e can save democracy in some form if we modify the franchise and create houses for the classes again, and give women a separate house. But (as Samuel Huntington warned) democracy cannot survive Islam. Between (1) granting women the franchise, (2) postwar Jewish marxism-socialism-postmodernism-feminism-denialism and (3) Islamic religion-of-continuous-war-and-conquest by continuous undermining, without Monarchy as a judge of last resort and without our traditional law of sovereignty in ‘Inviolable Book’ form, and without a Civilization’s State religion we are not able to resist (defeat) the ease at which women’s intuition for undermining, the Jewish and Muslim strategy of undermining can be combined to destroy the only civilization to drag mankind out of the perpetual dark age of Abrahamic Ignorance and Deceit. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity cost us all the great civilizations of the ancient world: North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, Roman, Greek, The Indus region of India, And was stopped only because it consumes whatever people adopt it, and reduces them to perpetual externalization of inner conflict through blame of others, whereas every other religious system provides mindfulness within the self. Western civilization uniquely created continuous innovation and adaptation by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty and Reciprocity before Self all favor others (the polity) in exchange for status, and status produces mindfulness by existential, demonstrated, evidentiary, constructive means. Sovereignty requires reciprocity, reciprocity requires the natural law of tort, jury, and court of peers, and cooperation is limited to markets in every domain of life regardless of station. Markets in every domain of life produce the most rapid means of adaptation. Adaptation of the law by continuous competition in court produces the most rapid means of political adaptation. material heroism by the use of technology, contract and maneuver, produce the most rapid means of technological adaptation. It is this heroism and sovereignty that came west into Europe with the indo-European expansion. It’s that heroism and sovereignty that made Greece and Rome. And it’s that heroism and sovereignty that rescued us from the last Dark Age. And it’s that heroism and sovereignty that built the modern world of plenty. It was Semitic false promise of a monopoly underclass desirable for women and slaves, and the forcible imposition of superstition, by a priesthood selling lies that replaced a martial aristocracy demonstrating truth, and a failure to constrain roman expansion to the rate at which people could be civilized into a martial and middle-class society that created the opportunity for a dark age, and the vast numbers of Muslim raiders that destroyed civilizations, arts, knowledge, and trade routes that produced the First Semitic Dark age. But it is our failure to learn from that experience and to change from western market tolerance to western monopoly warfare against these enemies that threatens a second Semitic dark age. The Group’s strategy was to replace science with pseudoscience(Marx, Freud, Boas), Math with pseudo-mathematics (Cantor, Bohr), reason with sophistry(Derrida), class and gender cooperation with conflict(Adorno, Friedan), Heroism with Victimization(Frankfurt), and Law with Politics. Just as they had replaced the west’s ‘book’ of Homer, Our Aristocratic Hero of Achilles, our Family of the Gods, and our rational law, empiricism, and reason with the Semitic ‘books’, the victim-hero of jews and Jesus persecution, the family of Jewish heroes, the apostles and saints, supernatural law, supernaturalism, and the great Semitic deceit using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophistry to avoid argument and truth), critique (disapproval, straw-manning, and poisoning the well to avoid argument and truth), hiding under voluntary choice, plausible deniability for the hazard and unfalsifiability of promises to create not innovation and production, evolution and transcendence, but devolution, ignorance, submission, consumption, destruction, and dysgenia. Their group strategy like the female’s is Anti-civilization: Their Pursuit of a Second Dark Age. Undermining and conflict generation is the instinctive female strategy and that their (((Elites))) are the antithesis – mirror image – of western civilization’s Creation, Innovation, Cooperation by Markets, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Heroism, Truth. There is no difference between Jewish invention of false promises in ancient world, Christian destruction of the European ancient world, and Islamic destruction of the rest of the civilizations of the ancient world, and the Jewish invention of false promises of denial, sophistry, and pseudoscience in Marxism in economics, Freudianism in psychology, boasianism in anthropology, Cantorian-Bohr math, frankfurt in cultural marxism, postmodern relativism and denialism, in academy, undermining rule of law in the courts, and Marxist, feminist, postmodern identitarian conflict generation under pretense that markets are not the only possible means of cooperation. They literally have tried to destroy truth, reason, and reason and cooperation by exchange in every possible dimension of human reason, knowledge, and cooperation. The Hindus produced wisdom literature in myth. Chinese produced wisdom literature and reason. The Europeans produced wisdom literature in empiricism. But the Semites produced a wisdom literature of lies. Why? Hermes and the cart of lies. Why did Semites invent lying? Likely Because professional (huckster) religion started in Anatolia-Mesopotamia, and it ameliorated the differences between very different tribes at the intersection of trade routes across four continents. The cure, of course, is to produce our own ‘Book’ that canonizes the group strategy of western civilization’s continuous innovation and adaptation – the civilization that dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early, death, and the status of victims of a nature all but deliberately hostile to human life. That book would state our history, our strategy, our law, and our method of reasoning in the language of our Natural Religion: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty and Reciprocity before Self, and markets in all aspects of life: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war. And it would, as do all books, set the terms by which none may trespass in thought, display, word, or deed – regardless of rank, nation, race or excuse. Heroism and Man for the Aristocracy, Stoicism and Nature for the able, Christianity for the vulnerable. That is the end purpose of the P-law project. And a revolution and restoration and renaissance of our civilization. And an end to Semitic dark ages in European alliance with Sinic, Hindu, and African civilizations will bring it about. Truth can win if men choose. It is just our choice.

  • THE END OF DEMOCRACY? OR A SECOND DARK AGE.

    [W]e can save democracy in some form if we modify the franchise and create houses for the classes again, and give women a separate house. But (as Samuel Huntington warned) democracy cannot survive Islam. Between (1) granting women the franchise, (2) postwar Jewish marxism-socialism-postmodernism-feminism-denialism and (3) Islamic religion-of-continuous-war-and-conquest by continuous undermining, without Monarchy as a judge of last resort and without our traditional law of sovereignty in ‘Inviolable Book’ form, and without a Civilization’s State religion we are not able to resist (defeat) the ease at which women’s intuition for undermining, the Jewish and Muslim strategy of undermining can be combined to destroy the only civilization to drag mankind out of the perpetual dark age of Abrahamic Ignorance and Deceit. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity cost us all the great civilizations of the ancient world: North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, Roman, Greek, The Indus region of India, And was stopped only because it consumes whatever people adopt it, and reduces them to perpetual externalization of inner conflict through blame of others, whereas every other religious system provides mindfulness within the self. Western civilization uniquely created continuous innovation and adaptation by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty and Reciprocity before Self all favor others (the polity) in exchange for status, and status produces mindfulness by existential, demonstrated, evidentiary, constructive means. Sovereignty requires reciprocity, reciprocity requires the natural law of tort, jury, and court of peers, and cooperation is limited to markets in every domain of life regardless of station. Markets in every domain of life produce the most rapid means of adaptation. Adaptation of the law by continuous competition in court produces the most rapid means of political adaptation. material heroism by the use of technology, contract and maneuver, produce the most rapid means of technological adaptation. It is this heroism and sovereignty that came west into Europe with the indo-European expansion. It’s that heroism and sovereignty that made Greece and Rome. And it’s that heroism and sovereignty that rescued us from the last Dark Age. And it’s that heroism and sovereignty that built the modern world of plenty. It was Semitic false promise of a monopoly underclass desirable for women and slaves, and the forcible imposition of superstition, by a priesthood selling lies that replaced a martial aristocracy demonstrating truth, and a failure to constrain roman expansion to the rate at which people could be civilized into a martial and middle-class society that created the opportunity for a dark age, and the vast numbers of Muslim raiders that destroyed civilizations, arts, knowledge, and trade routes that produced the First Semitic Dark age. But it is our failure to learn from that experience and to change from western market tolerance to western monopoly warfare against these enemies that threatens a second Semitic dark age. The Group’s strategy was to replace science with pseudoscience(Marx, Freud, Boas), Math with pseudo-mathematics (Cantor, Bohr), reason with sophistry(Derrida), class and gender cooperation with conflict(Adorno, Friedan), Heroism with Victimization(Frankfurt), and Law with Politics. Just as they had replaced the west’s ‘book’ of Homer, Our Aristocratic Hero of Achilles, our Family of the Gods, and our rational law, empiricism, and reason with the Semitic ‘books’, the victim-hero of jews and Jesus persecution, the family of Jewish heroes, the apostles and saints, supernatural law, supernaturalism, and the great Semitic deceit using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophistry to avoid argument and truth), critique (disapproval, straw-manning, and poisoning the well to avoid argument and truth), hiding under voluntary choice, plausible deniability for the hazard and unfalsifiability of promises to create not innovation and production, evolution and transcendence, but devolution, ignorance, submission, consumption, destruction, and dysgenia. Their group strategy like the female’s is Anti-civilization: Their Pursuit of a Second Dark Age. Undermining and conflict generation is the instinctive female strategy and that their (((Elites))) are the antithesis – mirror image – of western civilization’s Creation, Innovation, Cooperation by Markets, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Heroism, Truth. There is no difference between Jewish invention of false promises in ancient world, Christian destruction of the European ancient world, and Islamic destruction of the rest of the civilizations of the ancient world, and the Jewish invention of false promises of denial, sophistry, and pseudoscience in Marxism in economics, Freudianism in psychology, boasianism in anthropology, Cantorian-Bohr math, frankfurt in cultural marxism, postmodern relativism and denialism, in academy, undermining rule of law in the courts, and Marxist, feminist, postmodern identitarian conflict generation under pretense that markets are not the only possible means of cooperation. They literally have tried to destroy truth, reason, and reason and cooperation by exchange in every possible dimension of human reason, knowledge, and cooperation. The Hindus produced wisdom literature in myth. Chinese produced wisdom literature and reason. The Europeans produced wisdom literature in empiricism. But the Semites produced a wisdom literature of lies. Why? Hermes and the cart of lies. Why did Semites invent lying? Likely Because professional (huckster) religion started in Anatolia-Mesopotamia, and it ameliorated the differences between very different tribes at the intersection of trade routes across four continents. The cure, of course, is to produce our own ‘Book’ that canonizes the group strategy of western civilization’s continuous innovation and adaptation – the civilization that dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early, death, and the status of victims of a nature all but deliberately hostile to human life. That book would state our history, our strategy, our law, and our method of reasoning in the language of our Natural Religion: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty and Reciprocity before Self, and markets in all aspects of life: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war. And it would, as do all books, set the terms by which none may trespass in thought, display, word, or deed – regardless of rank, nation, race or excuse. Heroism and Man for the Aristocracy, Stoicism and Nature for the able, Christianity for the vulnerable. That is the end purpose of the P-law project. And a revolution and restoration and renaissance of our civilization. And an end to Semitic dark ages in European alliance with Sinic, Hindu, and African civilizations will bring it about. Truth can win if men choose. It is just our choice.

  • THE END OF DEMOCRACY? We can save democracy in some form if we modify the franch

    THE END OF DEMOCRACY?

    We can save democracy in some form if we modify the franchise and create houses for the classes again, and give women a separate house. But (as Samuel Huntington warned) democracy cannot survive Islam. Between (1) granting women the franchise, (2) postwar jewish marxism-socialism-postmodernism-feminism-denialism and (3) Islamic religion-of-continuous-war-and-conquest by continuous undermining, without Monarchy as a judge of last resort and without our traditional law of sovereignty in ‘Inviolable Book’ form, and without a Civilization’s State religion we are not able to resist (defeat) the ease at which women’s intuition for undermining, the jewish and muslim strategy of undermining can be combined to destroy the only civilization to drag mankind out of the perpetual dark age of Abrahamic Ignorance and Deceit. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity cost us all the great civilizations of the ancient world: North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, Roman, Greek, The Indus region of India, And was stopped only because it consumes whatever people adopt it, and reduces them to perpetual externalization of inner conflict through blame of others, whereas every other religious system provides mindfulness within the self.

    Western civilization uniquely created continuous innovation and adaptation by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty and Reciprocity before Self all favor others (the polity) in exchange for status, and status produces mindfulness by existential, demonstrated, evidentiary, constructive means.

    Sovereignty requires reciprocity, reciprocity requires the natural law of tort, jury, and court of peers, and cooperation is limited to markets in every domain of life regardless of station. Markets in every domain of life produce the most rapid means of adaptation. Adaptation of the law by continuous competition in court produces the most rapid means of political adaptation. material heroism by the use of technology, contract and maneuver, produce the most rapid means of technological adaptation.

    It is this heroism and sovereignty that came west into europe with the indo-european expansion. It’s that heroism and sovereignty that made Greece and rome.

    It was semitic false promise of a monopoly underclass desirable for women and slaves, and the forcible imposition of superstition, by a priesthood selling lies that replaced a martial aristocracy demonstrating truth, and a failure to constrain roman expansion to the rate at which people could be civilized into a martial and middle class society that created the opportunity for a dark age, and the vast numbers of muslim raiders that destroyed civilizations, arts, knowledge, and trade routes that produced the First Semitic Dark age.

    But it is our failure to learn from that experience and to change from western market tolerance to western monopoly warfare against these enemies that threatens a second semitic dark age.

    The Group’s Strategy was to replace science with pseudoscience(Marx,Freud,Boas), Math with pseudo-mathematics (Cantor, Bohr), reason with sophistry(Derrida), class and gender cooperation with conflict(Adorno, Friedan), Heroism with Victimization(Frankfurt), and Law with Politics. Just as they had replaced the west’s ‘book’ of Homer, Our Aristocratic Hero of Achilles, our Family of the Gods, and our rational law, empiricism, and reason with the semitic ‘books’, the victim-hero of jews and jesus persecution, the family of jewish heroes, the apostles and saints, supernatural law, supernaturalism, and the great semitic deceit using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophistry to avoid argument and truth), critique (disapproval, straw manning, and poisoning the well to avoid argument and truth), hiding under voluntary choice, plausible deniability for the hazard and unfalsifiability of promises to create not innovation and production, evolution and transcendence, but devolution, ignorance, submission, consumption, destruction and and dysgenia. Their group strategy like the female’s is Anti-civilization: Their Pursuit of a Second Dark Age.

    Undermining and conflict generation is the instinctive female strategy and that their (((Elites))) are the antithesis – mirror image – of western civilization’s Creation, Innovation, Cooperation by Markets, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Heroism, Truth.

    There is no difference between jewish invention of false promises in ancient world, christian destruction of the the european ancient world, and islamic destruction of the rest of the civilizations of the ancient world, and the jewish invention of false promises of denial, sophistry, and pseudoscience in Marxism in economics, fruedianism in psychology, boasianism in anthorpology, cantorian-bohr math, freankfurt in cultural marxism, postmodern relativism and denialism, in adademy, undermining rule of law in the courts, and marxist, feminist, postmodern identitarian conflict generation under pretense that markets are not the only possible means of cooperation. They literally have tried to destroy truth, reason, and reason and cooperation by exchange in every possible dimension of human reason, knowledge, and cooperation.

    The hindus produced wisdom literature in myth. Chinese produced wisdom literature and reason. The europeans produced wisdom literature in empiricism. But the semites produced a wisdom literature of lies. Why? Hermes and the cart of lies. Why did Semites invent lying? Likely Because professional (huckster) religion started in Anatolia-Mesopotamia, and it ameliorated the differences between very different tribes at the intersection of trade routes across four continents.

    The cure of course is to produce our own ‘Book’ that canonizes the group strategy of western civilization’s continuous innovation and adaptation – the civilization that dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early, death, and the status of victims of a nature all but deliberately hostile to human life.

    That book would state our history, our strategy, our law, and our method of reasoning in the language of our Natural Religion: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty and Reciprocity before Self, and markets in all aspects of life: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war. And it would, as do all books, set the terms by which none may trespass in thought, display, word, or deed – regardless of rank, nation, race or excuse. Heroism and Man for the Aristocracy, Stoicism and Nature for the able, Christianity for the vulnerable.

    That is the end purpose of the P-law project. And a revolution and restoration and renaissance of our civilization. And an end to semitic dark ages in European alliance with Sinic, Hindu, and African civilizations will bring it about.

    Truth can win if men choose.

    It is just our choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-07 09:48:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/81041691_173436870721141_87154984462

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/81041691_173436870721141_87154984462

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/81041691_173436870721141_8715498446229864448_o_173436867387808.jpg EXPANDING THE BULLET LIST: WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?

    LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL

    “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”

    That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very.

    Now what do we do with that completed scientific method?

    This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application.

    We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines.

    We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law.

    We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution.

    That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism.

    One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left.

    The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century.

    That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes.

    Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons.

    See?

    LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

    Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method.

    Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements.

    By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech.

    We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench).

    Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons.

    And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of.

    In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime.

    So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes

    WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR)

    What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism?

    What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism?

    What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions?

    Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols?

    So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)?

    Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational.

    What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations).

    It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions).

    And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.EXPANDING THE BULLET LIST: WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?

    LETS USE MINIMUM DETAIL

    “Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”

    That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very.

    Now what do we do with that completed scientific method?

    This scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application.

    We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines.

    We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law.

    We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution.

    That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism.

    One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally – which is a problem for the left.

    The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century.

    That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes.

    Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons.

    See?

    LETS ADD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

    Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method.

    Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements.

    By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech.

    We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench).

    Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons.

    And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of.

    In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime.

    So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes

    WHAT IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT? (A GRAMMAR)

    What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism?

    What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism?

    What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions?

    Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols?

    So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)?

    Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational.

    What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations).

    It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions).

    And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-24 14:40:00 UTC

  • The Demarcation Problem Is Complete

    KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT. [A]s far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract: 1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care. These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts. India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women. CRITICAL RATIONALISM So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). DUE DILIGENCE Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: 1 – categorical consistency (identity), 2 – internal consistency (logical), 3 – operational consistency (existential possibility), 4 – external consistency (empirical), 5 – rational consistency (rational choice), 6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state), 7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits), 8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed, 9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed. In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence. EPISTEMOLOGY Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only: … [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] … Instead of: … [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] … Which is a chain of iterations on: … [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] .. Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied). … [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] … And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline. CRITICAL PREFERENCE And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives. In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. It also explains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus because of our return to european geometry. And that in turn explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). DEMARCATION IS SOLVED So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, inpursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits. BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality. Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims. WHERE WERE WE FIND:Deflationary Grammars (logics) 1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations. .. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility. .. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics. .. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. And Descriptive Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do. And Inflationary Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time. And Grammars of Deceit (llogics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans. And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated. DEMARCATION IS SOLVED Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth. Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds. Given These Dimensions Possibility 1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). .. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) .. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) .. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) And These Dimensions of Decidability Indistinguishable(perception) > .. Distinguishable(cognition) > .. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) > .. .. .. Possible(material) > .. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) > .. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) > .. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological. Where the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series: 1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources. .. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources. .. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions. .. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability. And Where We Can Warranty the Consequences of The Promise of Infallibility of Decidability: 1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself. .. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. .. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. .. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. Where Decidability Consists In a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). Where Gramma refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions. And Where Truth Consists in The Series 1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. 2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). 3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) 4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. 5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. And Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series: 1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary,Differences) 2 – Internally Consistent (Logical) 3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical) 4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) 5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame) 6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) 7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) 8 – Warrantied … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: 1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; 2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence; 3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking; 4 – And the many Deceits of: … (a) Loading and Framing; … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … (d) and outright Fabrications. In Defense or Advocacy Of: 1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed; … (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. And Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of: 1 – Murder, 2 – Harm, Damage, Theft, 3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, 4 – Free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience) 6 – Rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience), 8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 9 – conquest (war). Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • The Demarcation Problem Is Complete

    KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT. [A]s far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract: 1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care. These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts. India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women. CRITICAL RATIONALISM So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). DUE DILIGENCE Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: 1 – categorical consistency (identity), 2 – internal consistency (logical), 3 – operational consistency (existential possibility), 4 – external consistency (empirical), 5 – rational consistency (rational choice), 6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state), 7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits), 8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed, 9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed. In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence. EPISTEMOLOGY Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only: … [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] … Instead of: … [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] … Which is a chain of iterations on: … [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] .. Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied). … [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] … And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline. CRITICAL PREFERENCE And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives. In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. It also explains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus because of our return to european geometry. And that in turn explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). DEMARCATION IS SOLVED So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, inpursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits. BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality. Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims. WHERE WERE WE FIND:Deflationary Grammars (logics) 1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations. .. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility. .. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics. .. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. And Descriptive Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do. And Inflationary Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time. And Grammars of Deceit (llogics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans. And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated. DEMARCATION IS SOLVED Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth. Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds. Given These Dimensions Possibility 1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). .. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) .. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) .. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) And These Dimensions of Decidability Indistinguishable(perception) > .. Distinguishable(cognition) > .. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) > .. .. .. Possible(material) > .. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) > .. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) > .. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological. Where the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series: 1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources. .. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources. .. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions. .. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability. And Where We Can Warranty the Consequences of The Promise of Infallibility of Decidability: 1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself. .. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. .. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. .. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. Where Decidability Consists In a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). Where Gramma refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions. And Where Truth Consists in The Series 1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. 2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). 3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) 4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. 5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. And Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series: 1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary,Differences) 2 – Internally Consistent (Logical) 3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical) 4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) 5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame) 6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) 7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) 8 – Warrantied … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: 1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; 2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence; 3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking; 4 – And the many Deceits of: … (a) Loading and Framing; … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … (d) and outright Fabrications. In Defense or Advocacy Of: 1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed; … (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. And Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of: 1 – Murder, 2 – Harm, Damage, Theft, 3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, 4 – Free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience) 6 – Rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience), 8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 9 – conquest (war). Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute