Form: Full Essay

Civil War: Enforcement: Threats, Charges, and Duties (“The Black Pages”)
Enforcement

Threats, Charges, and Duties
“Violence is neither good nor bad – it is a resource put to ends good or bad. Violence to obtain self determination by sovereignty, reciprocity, and testimony, in concert with physical natural and evolutionary laws, against a tide of civilizationcide, culturecide, ethnocide, and genocide, is a necessary, virtuous and heroic end.”

Introduction
While our demands are just, such demands lack weight unless accompanied by threats, promises, and the conviction to follow, keep, and act upon them. Therefore we promise the following:
Our Goal
We have only one goal. That is to demand the military:
1. Prevent a Civil War
2. Declare martial law
3. Vacate the House, and Senate
4. Vacate the Governments of the Rebellious cities
5. Seize assets of hostile parties
6. Install this constitution
7. Enact its articles and policies.
8. Return control of the government to the states.
( Counsel: The military will have no option, since the alternative will be incapacity to act either in foreign or domestic theatres, resulting in fighting wars on all fronts in an era under which it cannot possibly do so. In other words, we will force a controlled contraction under military guidance in furtherance of this constitution or an uncontrolled contraction in resistance to it. ) Strategy Our traditional way of war our traditional demand for reformation Weakness “Never has an empire been more fragile” Tactics “Silence, Darkness, Immobility, Hunger, and Cold” Cessation “Attrition Warfare Within a Polity, Once Started, Gains Momentum”
Threats

Means and Methods of War
(…)
Charges and Duties

Our Direction to Our People
1 – Restoration of Free Truthful Speech. 1 – Use Zero Tolerance: Free Speech Is Restored: … Political Speech shall constitute Protected Speech. … Liability for suppression of political speech is enacted. … No one may Prevent, Censor, Deny, Protest, Criticize the use of, Shame, Rally, Psychologize, Moralize, Demonize, Shout Down Political Speech, or “Doxx” (search for and publish private or identifying information), Threaten or Terminate employment, contract or agreement. … Heads of organizations, employees, vendors shareholders, are equally responsible for defense of political speech and offense or insult has no bearing. 2 – Liability for the Suppression of Truthful speech is enacted. 3 – Liability for Defamation by Falsehood is restored. 4 – Liability for harm by falsehood or irreciprocity to the informational commons is enacted. 5 – All citizens have the obligation to use law enforcement, violence, or extrajudicial punishment to enforce these liabilities under the Restoration of Free Truthful Speech. 2 – Revocation of Tolerance for Separatism 1 – Use Zero Tolerance: All symbols of non-integration to and separatism from European culture or Natural Law, Constitution and Institutions, including competition to Christian and Pagan religions, are prohibited, including religious, cultural, and political dress, symbols, signs, displays, language. 2 – Use Zero Tolerance: All public gatherings in celebration or reinforcement of any separatist display, word, or deed are prohibited. 3 – Use Zero Tolerance: All evangelism of or argumentative defense of any separatist display, word, or deed, is prohibited. 4 – And all citizens have the obligation and right to use law enforcement, violence, or extrajudicial punishment to enforce intolerance for separatism, and non-integration. 3 – Restoration of Citizen’s Defense of Private and Commons. 1 – Use Zero Tolerance: Carry arms if you have them, at all times, and be prepared to use them at all times. 2 – Use Zero Tolerance: “Shoot First, and Shoot To Kill” in the cases of Intentionally Blocking Roads or Walkways, Stalking, Aggression, Threatening, Violence, Trespass, Porch Pirating, Robbery, Looting and Rioting. 3 – Use Zero Tolerance: Threaten, Confront. Arrest, Bind, and Contain or Kill if necessary, anyone in your neighborhood, not living in your neighborhood, or without documented commercial requirement to service a customer in your neighborhood. 4 – Reward for fighting to install this constitution 1 – The family of anyone who fights shall receive no less than $8,000 per month, within the first seven days of the month, from their current bank, direct from the central bank, from the treasury, for the duration of the fight. 2 – Anyone who joins and fights in the first thirty days lives tax-free for life. 3 – Anyone who joins and fights in the first thirty days receives a $250,000 one time payment from the Treasury at the end of the fight. 4 – Anyone who fights keeps whatever loot obtained from any opposition during the fighting. 5 – Anyone in the treasury and banking system that fails this duty, or abandons his post, office or job shall be summarily expelled from the nation. Anyone who resists the fulfillment of this demand shall be summarily executed. 5 – (behavior toward police, fire, emergency, politicians, celebrities)
Our Direction to Our Officers Soldiers, Sheriffs, and Police
( … ) Borders shall be closed Immigration and naturalization halted.
Our Direction to First Responders
( … ) Our Direction to Politicians, Bureaucrats and Dependents ( … ) You keep as long as you do not interfere. Otherwise, you lose, and you lose your life.
Regarding Willing Accomplices
A Threat to Employers of Conspirators (subsidy for automation) Only in case of immediate reporting and termination: If you cannot automate, and cannot find employees, then you may declare bankruptcy, the State will absorb your debts, and you may receive 60% of your salary for 10 years in compensation, in addition to the constitutional redistributions. If we discover even one post 1964 immigrants in your employment, your assets and your life are forfeit, and you will be subject to summary execution. Whereas (remember for 10000 years), end the dark age of Semitism for eternity. Therefore;
Regarding Agents of The Enemies
(21 days to exit with anything you can carry, or execution on sight ) Miscegenation The positioning of white men Anti White Speech, display or deed. ( … ) Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc… deplatforming. Soros Southern Poverty Law Center New York Times
Regarding Enemies
Given that Men of moral mind must possess direct instruction free of interpretation when engaged in acts of prosecution, restitution, and punishment by violence; we charge the Men among our People with the following Duties during the process of transition: Whereas there exists no possible claim under the Natural Law by which to resist the Declaration, Constitution, and this Warranty; Therefore;
Regarding Compliance:
Questions for assistance in compliance are necessary. And all possible assistance shall be given to those willing to comply, and those who engage in the methods of our enemies by baiting, entrapment, or fraud of honest people shall be punished as traitors. Regarding Exit: ( … ) Must be provided exit. Forcible repatriation. ( … ) Regarding Resistance: Whereas questions for assistance in compliance are necessary, resistance is not. Therefore any and all counter-signaling, counter-argument, resistance, and anything other than immediate obedience shall require summary execution by strangling or hanging; or in the case of physical resistance, any means at the posse’s disposal. Any organized resistance shall require summary execution of three generations of the relations of that individual in every direction. (Counsel: The purpose of familial punishment is to force the families to take responsibility for the actions of their members, thus reducing the burden on the Men. Under The Law, everyone is forever responsible for defending the People against one’s kin for three generations in every direction. The history of man is one of some family members taking unnatural actions on the behalf of their relations without punishment of the relations for benefiting from the crime. As such, every family member is responsible for the actions of every other. ) Regarding Defection: Defectors and Traitors shall be shot, beheaded, hung, crucified, burned, or impaled. Leaders shall be killed. Followers may convert, lose their franchise, forfeit their property, and pay the taxation, or leave, or die. Having claimed conversion and recanted to any degree, they shall be prosecuted as defectors and traitors. All who interfere shall be prosecuted as defectors and traitors and shot, beheaded, hung, crucified, burned, or impaled. Regarding Enemy Shareholder Property ( … ) Regarding Financial Institutions Regarding The Fine Arts Any fine furniture, arts and artifacts of any other than Muslim or Jewish origin must be preserved and delivered to museums, libraries, or post offices, under penalty of Death by Treason.
Regarding Others

Our Appeals to Enemies of Our Mutual Enemy
( … )
Our Promise to Others
( … )
Canada

Australia

Britain

Europe

Russia

India

China

Africa

World Reaction

—“if Your Goals Are Realized in The Us, What (do You Believe) Would Be the Effect on Global Hegemony? Is This Speculation Worthwhile?”—
Yes, Speculation Is Worthwhile Because External Effect Is Part of The Desired Outcome. Let’s Assume One of Four Initial Reactions: 1 – External Actors Will Become More Confident in World Affairs and More Critical of Us Activity in The World. 2 – External Actors Will Support the Activity of Activists 3 – External Actors Will Seize Opportunities for Political Expansion of Influence. 4 – External Actors Will Seize Opportunities for Military Expansion of Influence. The Degree of Change in The World Will Be Dependent upon Those Actions and The Outcome of A Revolutionary Change: 1 – Acquiescence by The State and Restoration of The Powers of The States. 2 – Continuing Declining Low-Level Civil Warfare and Related Economic Decline 3 – A Significant Uprising that Forces the Military to Enact Martial Law . 4 – A Significant Uprising that Forces the Military to Call Troops from Abroad to American Soil. By and large the balance of powers will be restored, and either way, America will return to a domestic rather than imperial power. Since everyone knows this, particularly the upper levels of the military, the objective (my objective) is to make a revolutionary outcome so certain that the government merely meets our demands for devolution to the states. It is hard to object to my proposal other than out of job defense or collusion with the world’s globalist movement. We will own the blue water navy for a long time to come. We will lose and want to lose our responsibility for defending Europe. That will force Germany and Russia to work together and end our conflict. China much like Russia operates entirely for its domestic market. The USA operates for its globalist market. We just need to restore the balance of powers and then we can all focus on the only remaining enemy to the world: Judaism-Islam. What Will the Rest of The World Do? African states will resist the forcible repatriation of Africans. India will resist the forcible Repatriation of Indians. Mexico will resist the forcible repatriation of South Americans. The Muslim States will resist the forcible repatriation of Muslims Israel may or may not resist the forcible repatriation of Jews. The world will seek historical equilibrium in their spheres of influence, and the military will have to return to the continent rather than protecting Europe, thereby forcing Europe and Russia and eastern Europe into their historical alliance (Christendom). The outlier is the UK and if at all possible, it would be preferable to restore the British empire as the alliance of English speaking peoples. Incentives are relatively obvious at this point. We are the pin that holds the world together. But nuclear arms are what they are. The expected result is acceleration of what everyone in every think tank in the world suggests: The return to normal across the world.
March 17, 2019
Civil War: Enforcement: Threats, Charges, and Duties (“The Black Pages”)
Enforcement

Threats, Charges, and Duties
“Violence is neither good nor bad – it is a resource put to ends good or bad. Violence to obtain self determination by sovereignty, reciprocity, and testimony, in concert with physical natural and evolutionary laws, against a tide of civilizationcide, culturecide, ethnocide, and genocide, is a necessary, virtuous and heroic end.”

Introduction
While our demands are just, such demands lack weight unless accompanied by threats, promises, and the conviction to follow, keep, and act upon them. Therefore we promise the following:
Our Goal
We have only one goal. That is to demand the military:
1. Prevent a Civil War
2. Declare martial law
3. Vacate the House, and Senate
4. Vacate the Governments of the Rebellious cities
5. Seize assets of hostile parties
6. Install this constitution
7. Enact its articles and policies.
8. Return control of the government to the states.
( Counsel: The military will have no option, since the alternative will be incapacity to act either in foreign or domestic theatres, resulting in fighting wars on all fronts in an era under which it cannot possibly do so. In other words, we will force a controlled contraction under military guidance in furtherance of this constitution or an uncontrolled contraction in resistance to it. ) Strategy Our traditional way of war our traditional demand for reformation Weakness “Never has an empire been more fragile” Tactics “Silence, Darkness, Immobility, Hunger, and Cold” Cessation “Attrition Warfare Within a Polity, Once Started, Gains Momentum”
Threats

Means and Methods of War
(…)
Charges and Duties

Our Direction to Our People
1 – Restoration of Free Truthful Speech. 1 – Use Zero Tolerance: Free Speech Is Restored: … Political Speech shall constitute Protected Speech. … Liability for suppression of political speech is enacted. … No one may Prevent, Censor, Deny, Protest, Criticize the use of, Shame, Rally, Psychologize, Moralize, Demonize, Shout Down Political Speech, or “Doxx” (search for and publish private or identifying information), Threaten or Terminate employment, contract or agreement. … Heads of organizations, employees, vendors shareholders, are equally responsible for defense of political speech and offense or insult has no bearing. 2 – Liability for the Suppression of Truthful speech is enacted. 3 – Liability for Defamation by Falsehood is restored. 4 – Liability for harm by falsehood or irreciprocity to the informational commons is enacted. 5 – All citizens have the obligation to use law enforcement, violence, or extrajudicial punishment to enforce these liabilities under the Restoration of Free Truthful Speech. 2 – Revocation of Tolerance for Separatism 1 – Use Zero Tolerance: All symbols of non-integration to and separatism from European culture or Natural Law, Constitution and Institutions, including competition to Christian and Pagan religions, are prohibited, including religious, cultural, and political dress, symbols, signs, displays, language. 2 – Use Zero Tolerance: All public gatherings in celebration or reinforcement of any separatist display, word, or deed are prohibited. 3 – Use Zero Tolerance: All evangelism of or argumentative defense of any separatist display, word, or deed, is prohibited. 4 – And all citizens have the obligation and right to use law enforcement, violence, or extrajudicial punishment to enforce intolerance for separatism, and non-integration. 3 – Restoration of Citizen’s Defense of Private and Commons. 1 – Use Zero Tolerance: Carry arms if you have them, at all times, and be prepared to use them at all times. 2 – Use Zero Tolerance: “Shoot First, and Shoot To Kill” in the cases of Intentionally Blocking Roads or Walkways, Stalking, Aggression, Threatening, Violence, Trespass, Porch Pirating, Robbery, Looting and Rioting. 3 – Use Zero Tolerance: Threaten, Confront. Arrest, Bind, and Contain or Kill if necessary, anyone in your neighborhood, not living in your neighborhood, or without documented commercial requirement to service a customer in your neighborhood. 4 – Reward for fighting to install this constitution 1 – The family of anyone who fights shall receive no less than $8,000 per month, within the first seven days of the month, from their current bank, direct from the central bank, from the treasury, for the duration of the fight. 2 – Anyone who joins and fights in the first thirty days lives tax-free for life. 3 – Anyone who joins and fights in the first thirty days receives a $250,000 one time payment from the Treasury at the end of the fight. 4 – Anyone who fights keeps whatever loot obtained from any opposition during the fighting. 5 – Anyone in the treasury and banking system that fails this duty, or abandons his post, office or job shall be summarily expelled from the nation. Anyone who resists the fulfillment of this demand shall be summarily executed. 5 – (behavior toward police, fire, emergency, politicians, celebrities)
Our Direction to Our Officers Soldiers, Sheriffs, and Police
( … ) Borders shall be closed Immigration and naturalization halted.
Our Direction to First Responders
( … ) Our Direction to Politicians, Bureaucrats and Dependents ( … ) You keep as long as you do not interfere. Otherwise, you lose, and you lose your life.
Regarding Willing Accomplices
A Threat to Employers of Conspirators (subsidy for automation) Only in case of immediate reporting and termination: If you cannot automate, and cannot find employees, then you may declare bankruptcy, the State will absorb your debts, and you may receive 60% of your salary for 10 years in compensation, in addition to the constitutional redistributions. If we discover even one post 1964 immigrants in your employment, your assets and your life are forfeit, and you will be subject to summary execution. Whereas (remember for 10000 years), end the dark age of Semitism for eternity. Therefore;
Regarding Agents of The Enemies
(21 days to exit with anything you can carry, or execution on sight ) Miscegenation The positioning of white men Anti White Speech, display or deed. ( … ) Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc… deplatforming. Soros Southern Poverty Law Center New York Times
Regarding Enemies
Given that Men of moral mind must possess direct instruction free of interpretation when engaged in acts of prosecution, restitution, and punishment by violence; we charge the Men among our People with the following Duties during the process of transition: Whereas there exists no possible claim under the Natural Law by which to resist the Declaration, Constitution, and this Warranty; Therefore;
Regarding Compliance:
Questions for assistance in compliance are necessary. And all possible assistance shall be given to those willing to comply, and those who engage in the methods of our enemies by baiting, entrapment, or fraud of honest people shall be punished as traitors. Regarding Exit: ( … ) Must be provided exit. Forcible repatriation. ( … ) Regarding Resistance: Whereas questions for assistance in compliance are necessary, resistance is not. Therefore any and all counter-signaling, counter-argument, resistance, and anything other than immediate obedience shall require summary execution by strangling or hanging; or in the case of physical resistance, any means at the posse’s disposal. Any organized resistance shall require summary execution of three generations of the relations of that individual in every direction. (Counsel: The purpose of familial punishment is to force the families to take responsibility for the actions of their members, thus reducing the burden on the Men. Under The Law, everyone is forever responsible for defending the People against one’s kin for three generations in every direction. The history of man is one of some family members taking unnatural actions on the behalf of their relations without punishment of the relations for benefiting from the crime. As such, every family member is responsible for the actions of every other. ) Regarding Defection: Defectors and Traitors shall be shot, beheaded, hung, crucified, burned, or impaled. Leaders shall be killed. Followers may convert, lose their franchise, forfeit their property, and pay the taxation, or leave, or die. Having claimed conversion and recanted to any degree, they shall be prosecuted as defectors and traitors. All who interfere shall be prosecuted as defectors and traitors and shot, beheaded, hung, crucified, burned, or impaled. Regarding Enemy Shareholder Property ( … ) Regarding Financial Institutions Regarding The Fine Arts Any fine furniture, arts and artifacts of any other than Muslim or Jewish origin must be preserved and delivered to museums, libraries, or post offices, under penalty of Death by Treason.
Regarding Others

Our Appeals to Enemies of Our Mutual Enemy
( … )
Our Promise to Others
( … )
Canada

Australia

Britain

Europe

Russia

India

China

Africa

World Reaction

—“if Your Goals Are Realized in The Us, What (do You Believe) Would Be the Effect on Global Hegemony? Is This Speculation Worthwhile?”—
Yes, Speculation Is Worthwhile Because External Effect Is Part of The Desired Outcome. Let’s Assume One of Four Initial Reactions: 1 – External Actors Will Become More Confident in World Affairs and More Critical of Us Activity in The World. 2 – External Actors Will Support the Activity of Activists 3 – External Actors Will Seize Opportunities for Political Expansion of Influence. 4 – External Actors Will Seize Opportunities for Military Expansion of Influence. The Degree of Change in The World Will Be Dependent upon Those Actions and The Outcome of A Revolutionary Change: 1 – Acquiescence by The State and Restoration of The Powers of The States. 2 – Continuing Declining Low-Level Civil Warfare and Related Economic Decline 3 – A Significant Uprising that Forces the Military to Enact Martial Law . 4 – A Significant Uprising that Forces the Military to Call Troops from Abroad to American Soil. By and large the balance of powers will be restored, and either way, America will return to a domestic rather than imperial power. Since everyone knows this, particularly the upper levels of the military, the objective (my objective) is to make a revolutionary outcome so certain that the government merely meets our demands for devolution to the states. It is hard to object to my proposal other than out of job defense or collusion with the world’s globalist movement. We will own the blue water navy for a long time to come. We will lose and want to lose our responsibility for defending Europe. That will force Germany and Russia to work together and end our conflict. China much like Russia operates entirely for its domestic market. The USA operates for its globalist market. We just need to restore the balance of powers and then we can all focus on the only remaining enemy to the world: Judaism-Islam. What Will the Rest of The World Do? African states will resist the forcible repatriation of Africans. India will resist the forcible Repatriation of Indians. Mexico will resist the forcible repatriation of South Americans. The Muslim States will resist the forcible repatriation of Muslims Israel may or may not resist the forcible repatriation of Jews. The world will seek historical equilibrium in their spheres of influence, and the military will have to return to the continent rather than protecting Europe, thereby forcing Europe and Russia and eastern Europe into their historical alliance (Christendom). The outlier is the UK and if at all possible, it would be preferable to restore the British empire as the alliance of English speaking peoples. Incentives are relatively obvious at this point. We are the pin that holds the world together. But nuclear arms are what they are. The expected result is acceleration of what everyone in every think tank in the world suggests: The return to normal across the world.
March 17, 2019
CLASSES AND RACES MAKE FOR MARKETS AND NATIONS; Brandon Hayes (Repost from Octob

CLASSES AND RACES MAKE FOR MARKETS AND NATIONS;

Brandon Hayes

(Repost from October 17, 2018) (edited for clarity)

DEFINITION: TOLERANCE VS. FORBEARANCE

-ZERO TOLERANCE-

—” …really let that sink in…. conflation… that’s all it took. A bit of ambiguity and a bit of repetition and the cult of non-submission became a slave society.”—Bill Joslin

—“Zero Tolerance is the only defense against incrementalism. – via Curt Doolittle

—“I use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs. It is a passive state. No agency. … I use Forbearance to mean I intentionally take responsibility for the cost to allow someone else not to (ex. my children, my disabled kin, my employee that has not matured fully yet). It is an active state. Allows agency.” –– Luke Weinhagen

—“This opens up a whole other conversation – the centre holds onto tolerance because tolerance is passive. Those lacking agency can participate in tolerance while ignoring limits (because they don’t have the agency to enforce limits, by ignoring limits they can stay in denial of their lack of agency) … Forebearance include tolerance, limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), and active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” — Bill Joslin

—“

Aristocracy: War

Upper Class: Law

Upper Middle: Science (Econ)

Middle Class: Philosophy

Working Class: Religion

Underclass: Intuition.

“—By Curt Doolittle

____________________________________________

MARKETS BETWEEN THE CLASSES

Markets are the solution to cooperation and they form BETWEEN THE CLASSES!

When we begin to dissolve the classes or they become intertwined/intermingled with-in a democratic system; cooperation ceases and compromise becomes the ethic. And the way we compromise in democracy is voting. And people simply vote their temperamental bias. Our economic landscape favors an emotionally laden bias (feminine, dysgenic, short term), because we have created short term pleasure seekers as citizens. It’s a downward spiral to chaos.

The spark for this post was a conversation had over the last few days on my wall regarding the NPC phenomena. I follow a group of people who have (what I consider) the only cogent, evolutionarily stable, ready to roll out strategy to end what ails humanity. My aim is to advocate for every plan that is feasible; every pathway available; and every lifestyle commensurate with a peaceful and flourishing future for planet earth and the HUMANS that reside here.

[It may not seem it at times; but that’s as real as real gets. The better people are the better this place is for everyone. Look, some people are better than others (depends on the measure) this world isn’t and won’t ever be equal] {Humans don’t even like that; it spits in the face of their “sacred happiness” aim; as things are relative.}

– The Economic Influence –

Speaking of relative; RELATIVE inequality causes violence [mostly among men](not being poorer than your relatives {joke} but being poor among people who aren’t). Losses in property en toto (this includes abstract items like ego bruises; and losses to agency) are the cause of negative emotion.

It isn’t poverty nor lack of education that brings about violence; it’s despair. Not seeing a way out of your own suffering; which can be exacerbated by having those around you lack any sort of suffering (from what you can tell; NOTE: we all suffer). The internet and its primmed and primed stories don’t help. Technology has sped up trends that were already dangerous.

In order to reverse dangerous trends we must visit and take stock of the behaviors and feedback loops that cause them; and luckily or unluckily enough those behaviors are trained into most humans by use of incentive tooling (agents lacking the adequate serotonin levels to feel worthwhile; being supplemented by dopamine kicks through hedonistic pleasure seeking) [whether the tooling was purposeful or not is irrelevant; the new PROPER tooling can be purposeful and adaptive].

We live in an economic pleasure (happiness) trap, that just so happens to devolve into something that takes more and more effort to obtain “happiness.” It’s really quite brilliant to see. As you age you become more financially stable (usually) and capable of buying bigger ticket items that are supposed to bring you the appropriate amount of elation… they don’t.

The underclass (or lower class) needs domesticating; this can’t be gained or trained if we assume and grant them full personhood. The reason is simple; those that lack agency will push for incentives they simply CAN’T gain on their own (someone else must PAY). The same can be said but to a much lesser extent of the working class. They will vote their way into uselessness (dysgenic).

Knowing that agency must be trained AND that granted power (voting, judging, etc) will corrupt those moving through the world intuitively because they will use their power to justify their intuitions. We must teach (foster, train) an ethic of tolerance. THIS is where Jesus fits in: Tolerance must be the defining characteristic of the under/lower/working classes because they lack the ability for forbearance {for now}.

– The Christian Influence –

What Jesus did (the core metaphor of the new testament) was make a tolerable (perhaps even desirable) ethic for the (a) lower class (underclass). It’s a submissive ethic. It’s wise to adopt for those without agency (which most in the past we’re without agency [technology has released more capable agents than biological progress {possibly}). It’s wise to adopt when lacking agency because it purports safe long-term strategies devoid of tactics that require agency to unfurl; like violence, judgment, and punishment. [They leave that up to the flaming sword bearer; God; (reality en toto)]

Additionally, the Christian ethic is a route to agency; to adopt the mantra “you are that which dies and is reborn anew,” is essentially what one must do in order to author one’s own life.

Add to this; the idea that God is “hands on” is eradicated in the new testament! Look, we tortured then murdered the instantiation of Himself (Jesus) and He rises again as the holy spirit; i.e. God distributed among the living; hence each human represented as a single transcendent unit in the “eyes of the lord” (humanity as such). At least, that’s what I get from the book (the Theology people and their historic readings will murder me for that butchery of Christian Theology; but quite frankly they don’t have a good enough version of their own shit! If they did they world would be in an objectively better spot).

– The Underlying Strategy –

It just seems profound enough of a story (myth); WITHOUT the attached meta-physical or historical claims. It’s a shortcut to understand “you gotta do it for yourself; and it’ll be painful as hell.” Peterson says he acts as God exists; “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.” I disagree; I believe you ought to act as though God has left it to you (He resides INSIDE) to create paradise here on your own (with other humans; it’s up to us) AND like a great coach (or trainer), He won’t lift a meta-physical pinky finger to help you (He is confident you can pull through on your own).

This ethic; devoid of historical significance and attempted power grabbing lies, is a ready-to-roll-out behavioral-set [action pattern] that allows for much more (movement in the world) than it stifles. It peaches tolerance.

What lives on today; The Abrahamism; the cult of Abraham; feminism and post-modernism (the SJW phenomena) the argumentative realm of pilpul and critique; the feminine means of coercion (gossip shame rally moralize etc); Isn’t the proper lesson to be learned (obviously). It just so happens to be the evolutionary hardwiring (the training) that was encoded through orthodoxy. Weaponizing the texts as a means to gain power as opposed to a means to bring about peace. A catastrophic perversion of what should be lives currently. [God {reality as such} is angry! This is why we have chaos; you’ve collectively sinned (aimed improperly) and misused works for millennia].

Christianity (perhaps there are better forms than others; h/t Giego Caleiro… Mormonism?) is stable ethic for those still needing domestication (development of agency) and it doesn’t hinder their ability to obtain agency and can keep them docile and helpful if it never develops. It’s individualistic insistence; it’s push for individualism; to be a sovereign (one with agency) is VERY good. It’s an intuition training short cut to capable agents if pursued correctly (that’s with agency as the aim; of course).

However, this is the real world and individualism fails. It leaves you alone. The sovereign in the stories mentioned was tortured and murdered brutally; this is what attempting to be an individual sovereign will get you in this world. We just haven’t evolved that much. (That’s a warning; you can’t just be what you FEEL like you ought to be; not without suffering and sacrifice!)

– Human Nature –

Humans need collectives [families are PARAMOUNT]; some collectivism is needed because we need each other. It doesn’t matter how much technology and the state powers attempt to convince us otherwise [the issue is they have encoded “not needing each other” into people’s actions and destroyed families]. Nation states with stratified (but permeable) classes with their own cultural norms being followed are by far the best landscape for creating individuals with agency. And the best chance for humans to remain evolutionarily viable on planet earth. An amalgam of all the races, nations, and creeds; will leave human as ONE thing; unable to adjust for sudden changes in environment [say unable to deal with catastrophic climate shifts].

Collectives of people will wipe out individuals not playing by their rules if given enough power. Only groups are sovereign, and that sovereignty is purchased at the highest of costs; an armed collective [a militia willing to kill those who may threaten it]. We need stable collectives in the same manner we need stable people (they feed into each other). Bringing them about by top down dictum {rule of Law, NOT the current rule of lawyers} (because we know how; via-Negativa) as well as bottom-up evolution (stoicism; via self-authoring) is the only strategy we have; we must do this done by any means necessary.

– The Propertarian Ethic –

The propertarian ethic can be overlaid onto an agency developing under and working class. The zero tolerance for free-riding and parasitism can be applied without a hitch. And for what it’s worth it’s those at the tippy-top acting as parasites and value extractors causing the greatest harm. We get to have zero tolerance for THEM; they KNOW what their doing! Those that lack agency do what they are steered to do (either by the elephant or by the environment; they are the herd), we can only blame them if they choose to forgo the offer we make (an offer they can’t refuse).

This also requires LESS work to begin to roll-out societal changes because the ethic (in-part) simply needs a re-tooling as opposed to a complete culling and rebuilding. I am for using the current infrastructure (building and roadways; but also, stories and behavioral patterns) to our advantage (in pursuit of our aim). We are far down the spiral towards violence but given the superhuman technology and infrastructure we have developed we can back-track up this slippery slope and avoid bloodshed [something those far right and left don’t want to hear; they are antagonistic forces begging for a battle arena].

– The Current Perfect Storm –

What we have brewing is a perfect storm of chaos; the flood is very real and fast approaching. Pick an arena: all bubbles and TV shows; all smoke and mirrors; all bark no bite. No follow through, no competence, no gratitude; all attitude and feelings. I came the through idealistic meta-physical left; I was never for social justice; but I am for justice. The intellectual operational right has a roll-out ready solution to tensions that requires only the whiners and do-nothings to be stripped of authority; sign-me-up!

{NOTE: many of the humans currently alive lack agency; BUT the proper framework can simply “gift” it (agency) to those capable. It’s only their “training” that keeps them draining on the economy and on others; it’s only the affordance granted by our systems and institutions that keeps them dragging the rest of us down.}

Curt likes to proclaim that the West dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance and superstition [that’s right]; but quite frankly, it’s easier to drag corpses (or leave them to rot). This being said; I’m for releasing the ropes and chains used for dragging and simply asking y’all to walk alongside us towards something better; for everyone’s sake!

——

Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 08:08:00 UTC

March 6, 2019
A Style Guide to P-Prose
I. THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE

1 – A POST ————————– THIS TITLE IN CAPS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. ––“this is quoting someone else”–– —this is quoting myself— … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

. . .

II. ON STYLE ————————–

Karl Popper created (from aristotle, weber, and pareto) the method of analytic philosophy I make use of, which includes Definitions, Series, Lists, Tables, and parentheticals. He used italics a lot but italics aren’t available in FB or I would us Italics where I use Initial Capitals to denote the name of a definition in a series I have defined elsewhere.Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords. German Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions). Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation. I try to use parentheticals to create parallel sequences between vernacular terminology and technical terminology, or to insert my ‘voice or opinion’ into the middle of an objective text. Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques. Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions. Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations. (Repetition) : ( … ) (Repetition of series) : ( … ) Wordy Prose. – Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY. – Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY. – Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY. – Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY. – Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY. Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.

. . .

USE OF PARENTHETICALS (LIKE THIS)

The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits). In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective. If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes. IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs. Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms. So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals). But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure. Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time. This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informational density. Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text. My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.

Writing in Parentheticals, Series, and Axes (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from mal-attribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.

. . .

USE OF DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION,

What the heck does that mean?
1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.
So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So I’ll leave it there. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

. . .

USE OF TESTING RECIPROCITY, PROPERTY IN TOTO, TESTIMONY,

( … )

. . .

USE OF ARROWS? >, <, ->, <-

—“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol”– HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE

1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. FORMAT

|CONCEPT| neutral > low > medium > high > upper limit |CONCEPT| upper limit < high < medium < low < neutral |CONCEPT| worst < much worse < worse < neutral > better > much better > best EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more:

|FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions:

|MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more:

|EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision) I could write |Falsehood| like this, in code:
```
Define Falsehood( Criteria[] ) Returns Degree as Scalar {
   Return FIT(Criteria, (
       Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > 
       obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial
       ));
}
```
. . .

USE OF GRAPHS

A Triangulation:
```
......................COMPETITION
....................Voluntary Exchange

................Rule of Law of Reciprocity
..............Christian Rule of Law Monarchy
.............. Anglo Classical Liberalism
...............Continental Social Democracy
                  /                   \
Tolerant Civic Nationalism.........Intolerant Civic Nationalism
Christian Fundamentalism ..........National Socialism
                            ___
....Submission-Seduction...........Dominance-Warfare
.......UNIVERSALISM..................PARTICULARISM
```
Or many other shapes and tables. A Hierarchy:
```
Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >
…. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >
…. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >
…. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >
…. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >
…. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence
```
A Comparison:
```
............Female and Semitic vs Male and European
.....................Dysgenics vs Eugenics
...................Consumption vs Capitalization
...........Private Consumption vs Commons Production
...................Undermining vs Order
..........Approval/Disapproval vs True/False
................Incrementalism vs zero tolerance
.........Plausible Deniability vs Warranty
.........................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost
......................Critique vs Falsification
........................Pilpul vs Justification
.................False Promise vs Promise
...........Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity
......................One Herd vs Many Packs
```
Multi-Hierarchies
```
Burial …
Animism ….
… Sun Tzu Realism ( martial realism)
… … Confucianism (harmony)
… … … Daoism (Tolerance)
… Proto IE Religion
… … Proto Vedic
… … … Hinduism
… … … Zoroastrianism
… … European Sky Father (martial realism)
… … … European Common Law (legal realism)
… … … … Platonism (idealism)
… … … … … Aristotelianism (realism naturalism)
… Proto Semitic
… … Proto Judaism
… … … … Abrahamism <- Zoroastrianism (Authoritarianism)
… … … … … Rabbinical Judaism (Justificationism)
… … … … … Christianity (resistance)
… … … … … … The Augustinian Conflation (compromise)
… … … … … … … Orthodoxy – Catholicism, (settlement)
… … … … … … … … Protestantism, (reformation)
… … … … … … … … … Evangelicalism (folk-religion restoration)
… … … … … … Islam (7th c+)
… … … … … … … Fundamentalist Islam (11-12th c+)
```
. . .

USE OF SEQUENTIAL DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS

I don’t frequently use the narrative style. In fact almost everything I write is in programmatic style, where one declarative statement follows another, each incrementally adding to the one before it – brick by brick.

PREMISE OF AN OPTIMUM GOVERNMENT OF MAN 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for: 2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) … (more) …

. . .

USE OF PSEUDOCODE

Programming is not just a tool for using computers, but it is a new way of thinking that affected mathematics, logic, cognitive science, and now is altering physics. P-Logic consists in the convergence of programming, operationalism (which developed from praxeology), economics (supply and demand). P-Law consists of the application of P-logic to Reciprocity including that subset of reciprocity we call testimony, or more commonly, truthful speech. We construct P-Law just like a program:
```
Given (conditions)
Given (definitions, imported references)
Whereas (we wish to, achieve some end - "original intent")
Therefore (we shall, within these limits)
By this means (processes, procedures, rules, regulations)
That will result in (results)
And that will expire when (conditions)
And we Counsel (advice)
And We Can Do So Under Law (because)
And We Warranty By (list of due diligence)
And We shall be Liable For (liability, signed by)
```
This law is ‘rigorous’ because of the following reasons:
- We define all properties of man and mankind such that false claims cannot be made.
- We define testimony and reciprocity such that false and irreciprocal claims cannot be made.
- We enumerate all rights and obligations such that they are uninterpretable.
- We require proof by internal construction that the contract or legislation is permissible under the natural law.
- We require strict construction of complete sentences in operational language producing complete transactions of change in state.
- (and more)
=========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
February 28, 2019
A Style Guide to P-Prose
I. THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE

1 – A POST ————————– THIS TITLE IN CAPS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. ––“this is quoting someone else”–– —this is quoting myself— … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

. . .

II. ON STYLE ————————–

Karl Popper created (from aristotle, weber, and pareto) the method of analytic philosophy I make use of, which includes Definitions, Series, Lists, Tables, and parentheticals. He used italics a lot but italics aren’t available in FB or I would us Italics where I use Initial Capitals to denote the name of a definition in a series I have defined elsewhere.Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords. German Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions). Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation. I try to use parentheticals to create parallel sequences between vernacular terminology and technical terminology, or to insert my ‘voice or opinion’ into the middle of an objective text. Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques. Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions. Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations. (Repetition) : ( … ) (Repetition of series) : ( … ) Wordy Prose. – Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY. – Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY. – Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY. – Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY. – Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY. Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.

. . .

USE OF PARENTHETICALS (LIKE THIS)

The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits). In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective. If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes. IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs. Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms. So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals). But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure. Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time. This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informational density. Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text. My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.

Writing in Parentheticals, Series, and Axes (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from mal-attribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.

. . .

USE OF DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION,

What the heck does that mean?
1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.
So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So I’ll leave it there. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

. . .

USE OF TESTING RECIPROCITY, PROPERTY IN TOTO, TESTIMONY,

( … )

. . .

USE OF ARROWS? >, <, ->, <-

—“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol”– HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE

1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. FORMAT

|CONCEPT| neutral > low > medium > high > upper limit |CONCEPT| upper limit < high < medium < low < neutral |CONCEPT| worst < much worse < worse < neutral > better > much better > best EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more:

|FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions:

|MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more:

|EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision) I could write |Falsehood| like this, in code:
```
Define Falsehood( Criteria[] ) Returns Degree as Scalar {
   Return FIT(Criteria, (
       Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > 
       obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial
       ));
}
```
. . .

USE OF GRAPHS

A Triangulation:
```
......................COMPETITION
....................Voluntary Exchange

................Rule of Law of Reciprocity
..............Christian Rule of Law Monarchy
.............. Anglo Classical Liberalism
...............Continental Social Democracy
                  /                   \
Tolerant Civic Nationalism.........Intolerant Civic Nationalism
Christian Fundamentalism ..........National Socialism
                            ___
....Submission-Seduction...........Dominance-Warfare
.......UNIVERSALISM..................PARTICULARISM
```
Or many other shapes and tables. A Hierarchy:
```
Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >
…. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >
…. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >
…. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >
…. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >
…. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence
```
A Comparison:
```
............Female and Semitic vs Male and European
.....................Dysgenics vs Eugenics
...................Consumption vs Capitalization
...........Private Consumption vs Commons Production
...................Undermining vs Order
..........Approval/Disapproval vs True/False
................Incrementalism vs zero tolerance
.........Plausible Deniability vs Warranty
.........................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost
......................Critique vs Falsification
........................Pilpul vs Justification
.................False Promise vs Promise
...........Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity
......................One Herd vs Many Packs
```
Multi-Hierarchies
```
Burial …
Animism ….
… Sun Tzu Realism ( martial realism)
… … Confucianism (harmony)
… … … Daoism (Tolerance)
… Proto IE Religion
… … Proto Vedic
… … … Hinduism
… … … Zoroastrianism
… … European Sky Father (martial realism)
… … … European Common Law (legal realism)
… … … … Platonism (idealism)
… … … … … Aristotelianism (realism naturalism)
… Proto Semitic
… … Proto Judaism
… … … … Abrahamism <- Zoroastrianism (Authoritarianism)
… … … … … Rabbinical Judaism (Justificationism)
… … … … … Christianity (resistance)
… … … … … … The Augustinian Conflation (compromise)
… … … … … … … Orthodoxy – Catholicism, (settlement)
… … … … … … … … Protestantism, (reformation)
… … … … … … … … … Evangelicalism (folk-religion restoration)
… … … … … … Islam (7th c+)
… … … … … … … Fundamentalist Islam (11-12th c+)
```
. . .

USE OF SEQUENTIAL DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS

I don’t frequently use the narrative style. In fact almost everything I write is in programmatic style, where one declarative statement follows another, each incrementally adding to the one before it – brick by brick.

PREMISE OF AN OPTIMUM GOVERNMENT OF MAN 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for: 2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) … (more) …

. . .

USE OF PSEUDOCODE

Programming is not just a tool for using computers, but it is a new way of thinking that affected mathematics, logic, cognitive science, and now is altering physics. P-Logic consists in the convergence of programming, operationalism (which developed from praxeology), economics (supply and demand). P-Law consists of the application of P-logic to Reciprocity including that subset of reciprocity we call testimony, or more commonly, truthful speech. We construct P-Law just like a program:
```
Given (conditions)
Given (definitions, imported references)
Whereas (we wish to, achieve some end - "original intent")
Therefore (we shall, within these limits)
By this means (processes, procedures, rules, regulations)
That will result in (results)
And that will expire when (conditions)
And we Counsel (advice)
And We Can Do So Under Law (because)
And We Warranty By (list of due diligence)
And We shall be Liable For (liability, signed by)
```
This law is ‘rigorous’ because of the following reasons:
- We define all properties of man and mankind such that false claims cannot be made.
- We define testimony and reciprocity such that false and irreciprocal claims cannot be made.
- We enumerate all rights and obligations such that they are uninterpretable.
- We require proof by internal construction that the contract or legislation is permissible under the natural law.
- We require strict construction of complete sentences in operational language producing complete transactions of change in state.
- (and more)
=========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
February 28, 2019
The Hierarchy of The Laws (core)
THE HIERARCHY OF THE LAWS (Core) VIA NEGATIVA 1. Laws of Nature (Measurement) … Physics … Chemistry … Biology … Ecology … Economics (Cooperation) … Logics … Sentience (thought, reason)
1. Laws of Action
  … Engineering (?Where?)
  … … ( … ) Applied
2. Laws of Thought ( Logics )
  … ( … )
  … Neural Economy
3. Laws of Speech (Grammars)
  … … Logic
  … … Mathematics
  … … … Positional Naming
  … … … Counting
  … … … Arithmetic
  … … … … Accounting
  … … … Geometry
  … … … Calculus
  … … … Statistics
  … … Algorithm
  … … Recipe, Protocol
  … … Testimony
  … … Description
  … … Narration
  … … Fiction
  … … Fictionalisms
  … … … Sophistry, Idealism, Surrealism.
  … … … Spiritual, Occult, Supernatural
  … … … Magical, Supernormal, Pseudo scientific
  … … Deceits
4. Natural Law (Cooperation)
  … Juridical Law ( Conflict Resolution)
  … … Law of Property (Conflict Avoidance)
  … … Law of Tort (Conflict over Harms)
  … … Law of Contract (Conflict over Trades)
  … Normative Law (…)
  … … Manners, Ethics, Morals,
  … … Strategy (Traditions, Rituals, Myths, Histories)
  … … Institutions formal and informal.
  … Legislation (Commons Production)
  … … Regulation (Prior Restraints)
  … Command ( Deciding the Undecidable )
  … Treaty ( Between insurers of last resort )
  … War ( Beyond the Limits of Cooperation )
WHAT ‘LAW’ MEANS That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.

COMMON LAW AND TORT LAW AND HOW THEY ARE RELATED. I’m talking about the common law in the old sense as ‘the traditional law’ which consists of sovereignty and tort. In both UK and USA ‘common law’ often includes legislation that violates sovereignty and tort. In my work I make a clear distinction between the one law (reciprocity) common law (findings of the court), legislative law (improving or undermining the common law and the one law) and regulation (enforcement of legislative law whether it improves or undermines the common law and the one law) I refer to tort when I want to remind people that legislation and regulation do not necessarily (and often do not) preserve our natural, customary, traditional, rule of law by findings of law. The legislature’s original purpose was to choose whether the monarchy’s demand for the population to bear costs was acceptable to the regions,the warriors, the militia, and sometimes out of pragmatism) to the people. The ‘enlightenment’ took the power of commons choice out of the hands of the monarchy and put it into the republic (elected representatives, and the peerage (local governors)). The marxist and social democratic movement reversed our civilization by expanding the commons such that they violated our underlying natural law of reciprocity, in favor of the rest of humanity’s underclass demand for proportionality, and upon receiving proportionality, the political and underclass demand for equality of outcome. So, great question.

WHAT DOES NATURAL LAW MEAN? (with updates by Doolittle) Natural LawNatural Law – What is Law? Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question “What is Truth?” is to the logician. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on whatâs âcorrect.â Natural Law is âdiscoveredâ by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.Natural Law – The HistoryThe Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physics) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 322) is considered by many to be the father of natural law. In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from particularlaws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common lawor higher lawthat is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2). The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotleâs âhigher law,â Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — Augustine (AD 354â430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christâs grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. âThe Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.â (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American. The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- Natural Law – The Conclusion In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS 1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it. But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms. 2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation. 3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition. THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient. 1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created. 2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it. 3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law. 4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights). 5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, despite lack of reciprocity by foreign states. THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem. The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here). The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions? The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit? STRICTLY CONSTRUCTED LAW AND CONTRACT It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe.

The Structure of a Program or Contract

Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and Whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops) The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’, ‘limits’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insured by an empire: a larger insurer of last resort. TIPS ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict construction, in operational language, is extremely difficult, because it requires you have procedural understanding of the subject. Strictly constructed propertarian arguments SHOULDN’T be terribly difficult because each operation is subjectively testable by you. What I’ve seen from others efforts, is an attempt to mix non-operational moral language with feigned attempts at operational language, in order to retain moral loading – in order to textually vent moral frustration. But if you make a propertarian argument, you’re merely showing whether theft has occurred or not, or whether theft is attempted or not. That’s all. It’s only AFTER that determination that you can use pejorative and moral language to morally load an accusation of theft or attempted theft, deceit, or error. So try to build a story consisting of statements of ‘operational accounting’ He did this, she did that, etc. And only at the end should any statement transform the analytic proof of involuntary transfer to the moral accusation. Mathematical proofs are not moral they just describe. Accounting balances are not moral, they just describe. Propertarian arguments are not moral, they just describe. Legal justification from first principle of non-parasitism is not moral, just describes. It is after the proofs of each: mathematical equality, accounting ‘balance’, and propertarian voluntary transfer, that we render our judgements. Trying to load and frame a propertarian argument is difficult BECAUSE THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT I CREATED IT TO PREVENT.
February 27, 2019
The Hierarchy of The Laws (core)
THE HIERARCHY OF THE LAWS (Core) VIA NEGATIVA 1. Laws of Nature (Measurement) … Physics … Chemistry … Biology … Ecology … Economics (Cooperation) … Logics … Sentience (thought, reason)
1. Laws of Action
  … Engineering (?Where?)
  … … ( … ) Applied
2. Laws of Thought ( Logics )
  … ( … )
  … Neural Economy
3. Laws of Speech (Grammars)
  … … Logic
  … … Mathematics
  … … … Positional Naming
  … … … Counting
  … … … Arithmetic
  … … … … Accounting
  … … … Geometry
  … … … Calculus
  … … … Statistics
  … … Algorithm
  … … Recipe, Protocol
  … … Testimony
  … … Description
  … … Narration
  … … Fiction
  … … Fictionalisms
  … … … Sophistry, Idealism, Surrealism.
  … … … Spiritual, Occult, Supernatural
  … … … Magical, Supernormal, Pseudo scientific
  … … Deceits
4. Natural Law (Cooperation)
  … Juridical Law ( Conflict Resolution)
  … … Law of Property (Conflict Avoidance)
  … … Law of Tort (Conflict over Harms)
  … … Law of Contract (Conflict over Trades)
  … Normative Law (…)
  … … Manners, Ethics, Morals,
  … … Strategy (Traditions, Rituals, Myths, Histories)
  … … Institutions formal and informal.
  … Legislation (Commons Production)
  … … Regulation (Prior Restraints)
  … Command ( Deciding the Undecidable )
  … Treaty ( Between insurers of last resort )
  … War ( Beyond the Limits of Cooperation )
WHAT ‘LAW’ MEANS That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.

COMMON LAW AND TORT LAW AND HOW THEY ARE RELATED. I’m talking about the common law in the old sense as ‘the traditional law’ which consists of sovereignty and tort. In both UK and USA ‘common law’ often includes legislation that violates sovereignty and tort. In my work I make a clear distinction between the one law (reciprocity) common law (findings of the court), legislative law (improving or undermining the common law and the one law) and regulation (enforcement of legislative law whether it improves or undermines the common law and the one law) I refer to tort when I want to remind people that legislation and regulation do not necessarily (and often do not) preserve our natural, customary, traditional, rule of law by findings of law. The legislature’s original purpose was to choose whether the monarchy’s demand for the population to bear costs was acceptable to the regions,the warriors, the militia, and sometimes out of pragmatism) to the people. The ‘enlightenment’ took the power of commons choice out of the hands of the monarchy and put it into the republic (elected representatives, and the peerage (local governors)). The marxist and social democratic movement reversed our civilization by expanding the commons such that they violated our underlying natural law of reciprocity, in favor of the rest of humanity’s underclass demand for proportionality, and upon receiving proportionality, the political and underclass demand for equality of outcome. So, great question.

WHAT DOES NATURAL LAW MEAN? (with updates by Doolittle) Natural LawNatural Law – What is Law? Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question “What is Truth?” is to the logician. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on whatâs âcorrect.â Natural Law is âdiscoveredâ by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.Natural Law – The HistoryThe Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physics) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 322) is considered by many to be the father of natural law. In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from particularlaws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common lawor higher lawthat is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2). The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotleâs âhigher law,â Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — Augustine (AD 354â430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christâs grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. âThe Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.â (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American. The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- Natural Law – The Conclusion In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS 1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it. But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms. 2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation. 3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition. THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient. 1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created. 2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it. 3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law. 4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights). 5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, despite lack of reciprocity by foreign states. THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem. The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here). The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions? The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit? STRICTLY CONSTRUCTED LAW AND CONTRACT It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe.

The Structure of a Program or Contract

Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and Whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops) The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’, ‘limits’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insured by an empire: a larger insurer of last resort. TIPS ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict construction, in operational language, is extremely difficult, because it requires you have procedural understanding of the subject. Strictly constructed propertarian arguments SHOULDN’T be terribly difficult because each operation is subjectively testable by you. What I’ve seen from others efforts, is an attempt to mix non-operational moral language with feigned attempts at operational language, in order to retain moral loading – in order to textually vent moral frustration. But if you make a propertarian argument, you’re merely showing whether theft has occurred or not, or whether theft is attempted or not. That’s all. It’s only AFTER that determination that you can use pejorative and moral language to morally load an accusation of theft or attempted theft, deceit, or error. So try to build a story consisting of statements of ‘operational accounting’ He did this, she did that, etc. And only at the end should any statement transform the analytic proof of involuntary transfer to the moral accusation. Mathematical proofs are not moral they just describe. Accounting balances are not moral, they just describe. Propertarian arguments are not moral, they just describe. Legal justification from first principle of non-parasitism is not moral, just describes. It is after the proofs of each: mathematical equality, accounting ‘balance’, and propertarian voluntary transfer, that we render our judgements. Trying to load and frame a propertarian argument is difficult BECAUSE THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT I CREATED IT TO PREVENT.
February 27, 2019
Testimonial Pragmatism & Propertarian CalculusTestimonial Pragmatism & Propertar

Testimonial Pragmatism & Propertarian CalculusTestimonial Pragmatism & Propertarian Calculus

SINGULAR SPEECH·THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2018

Presuppositions of the Scientific Process

The scientific process allows us to create and test hypothesis such that we can use them to explain phenomena (within a degree of precision) and act on that knowledge (within the scope given by precision); but even such use comes with presuppositions (inherent limits).Presuppositions = [ Regularity | Shared Language ]One needs to presuppose that the phenomena under investigation have useful regularities which we can capture in a model (precise enough for us to act on it). If no regularity existed, our model would fail to help us make any prediction with any degree of reliability, and as such, it would work no better than fiction.Regularity := Unpredictable > Heuristic > Probabilistic > Deterministic > ConstantRegularity (constancy) sets an ideal limit on testing criteria, whose repeated application tests the consistency of models as they evolve, this guarantees constant maintenance of coherent models as a response to advances in instrumentation and logic.Science requires a common set of testing criteria, since without such common criteria, anyone could claim scientific status for their propositions. Science must work by the mapping of the “platonic folds” where theories fail to correspond enough with our data as to have any practical use.Shared Language := Nonsense > Associative > Meaningful > Operational > SynchronousSimultaneity (synchronism) sets an ideal limit on shared languages, which allows us to elaborate descriptions and constrain our imagination to that which someone seeks to communicate.Without (at least) an operational shared language, others will not execute commands (to measure, compare and transform) as intended. Deviations from shared language can result in many self-proclaimed “scientific” communities talking past each other.

Assumptions & Tools in Specific Disciplines

Beyond the core presuppositions that define science itself, specific disciplines adjoin premises (which complement the method), procedures (which sets a standard of action), techniques (which defines a common set of operations), and instruments (which expand the scope of exploration).Assumptions = [ Premises | Procedures | Techniques | Instruments ]Premises either evolve all the way from initial hypothesis towards its foundational status (in the scientific field) or result from the addition of ontological and logical assumptions from an expanded shared language.Ontological premises increase the vocabulary of a particular discipline beyond that of the scientific method, thus it provides the basic conceptual framework for further discussion. Scientific revolutions often result from the inspection into the “platonic foldings” (which define limits) for these systems.Logical premises restrict the range of linguistic operations upon which formal models get constructed. One can find the limits of a theory by mapping the points of failure where those limited set of operations predict beyond an acceptable margin of error.Techniques and Instruments evolve along with advances in technology (which expand that our physical senses), developments in the formal logic (which restrict our mental operations), and establishment of social institutions (which organize the community).Procedures evolve along with the tools of science (techniques and instruments) as operational definitions that convert theoretical constructs into measurable, comparable and transmutable data which one can then use.

Testing Criteria and Testimonial Constraints

Testing Criteria = [ Categorical | Logical | Empirical | Operational | Moral ] Testimonial Constraints = [ Scope | Information | Time ]The Categorical (which we may also call naming or identity) criterion refers to the proper avoidance of conflation by making explicit the ontology of a theory through labels and definitions, this allows us to eliminate a great deal of ambiguity and vagueness.The Logical (which we may also call internal consistency) criterion refers to the correct use of logical structures in our formal models of a theory and consistent narrative in informal models, this allows to eliminate ambiguity, restrict linguistic operations and to make further inferences.The Empirical (which we may also call external consistency) criterion refers to the use of data obtained from observations and experiments (through procedures) in order to verify predictions from theory.The Operational (which we may also call existential) criterion refers to the use of procedures in order to map from categories extant in our models into data which we can measure, compare and transform.The Moral (which we may also call reciprocal) criterion refers to the preservation of human cooperation, and for such to happen, our transactions must remain productive, symmetrical, warrantied, voluntary, and without negative externality.The Scope (which we may also call falsifiability) constraint refers to the use of empirical data and logical systems to find the limits where a theory fails to work with enough precision for us to act on it.The Information (which we may also call full accounting) constraint refers to the proper accounting of all relevant information through bias removal mechanisms such as double-blind, controlled, randomized trials; evaluation of construct validity; and market judgement (survival upon application).The Time (which we may also call survival) constraint refers to the survival of ideas after repeated exposure to testimonial judgement by all previous criteria to such an extent that we just integrate them into our assumptions.The Categorical, and Logical, and Empirical, and Operational, and Moral criteria judge the regularity of theories on (independent) dimensions of truthfulness, whereas the Information, and Scope, and Time criteria define constraints and obligations upon the application of all.

Assertions and Arguments under Testimonial Pragmatism

Assertions := Conceptual > Preferential > Practical > Moral > Rational > Decidable > Objective > IdenticalIdentical (tautological) propositions set an ideal limit on assertions, such that they describe with the greatest parsimony and precision possible.Arguments = [ Emotional | Normative | Logical | Analogical | Empirical | Economic | Testimonial ]Emotional arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by relating it to an emotional response upon the subject. It also includes arguments based on one’s intuitions.Normative arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by comparing it against the rules and norms which one considers to apply, whether its origin is biological, social, economic, or religious.Logical arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by analysis of the conceptual (its categorical consistency) and linguistic structure of the argument (its internal consistency).Analogical arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by means of a comparison with similar assertions about events in different contexts, such as the reference to specific examples.Empirical arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by using procedures to obtain data (measurement) and compare it with an assertion derived from an hypothesis (its external consistency).Economic arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by means like those of empirical arguments, but whose data comes from uncontrolled variable which one cannot measure directly.Testimonial arguments make use of normative, logical, analogical, empirical, and economic arguments in order to make practical, moral, rational, decidable, and objective assertions that survive the tests of categorical, logical, empirical, and operational consistency under the scope, information, and time constraints.

Evolutionary Epistemology under Testimonial Pragmatism

The scientific process works by use of its scientific method, which refers to the application of testing criteria as a way to filter out that which one finds untrue, rather than selection of that which is true.Assumptions := Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law > AssumptionOne can visualize the process, being one of inquiry, as starting with a problem and proceeding towards a solution, but it does not impose limits upon how one arrives to the initial hypothesis, one is free to engage in creative association.Upon achieving crucial ideas by free association (of ideas), one needs to formulate an hypothesis by proper organization of concepts (hypothesis must survive identity and logical tests) and their operational definitions (which allows one to apply empirical tests).The hypothesis which survives further testing (by our application of empirical tests) become theories which we will perpetually submit to further testing as we evolve beyond our previous assumptions.Once a theory survives application in the markets it becomes a law, which in the case of human cooperation includes the test of reciprocal consistency. Those laws which survive the tests of time (continuous application of tests over time) may evolve into assumptions (our collective premises).While the previous description applies to the evolution of knowledge into premises, similar series apply to the evolution of other discipline specific assumptions such as procedures, techniques, and even instruments.

Knowledge beyond Testimonial Pragmatism

Knowledge = [ Presuppositions | Assumptions | Traditions | Experiences ]One can also consider a broader pragmatic hierarchy, where testimonial pragmatism remains at the center as its core (along with its presuppositions). Beyond this core we see each discipline add further assumptions, which must still submit to testimonial judgement.Beyond core presuppositions and discipline specific assumptions one can include inherited traditions and personal experiences. Time tested heuristics (embedded in traditions) have survival value, even if we cannot ascertain its reason in declarative propositions.Personal experiences which do not contradict testimonial law also take part on the hierarchy. Such experiences may help one to compose their own personal morality and may aid in the discovery phase of the scientific process.

Demonstrated Property under Propertarian Calculus

Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.

Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.

Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.

Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.

Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares.

Common Property – Citizenship, Artificial Property.

Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.

Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

{TO BE CONTINUED…}

Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 17:03:00 UTC

February 20, 2019
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53020240_10157000369792264_195392115

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53020240_10157000369792264_195392115428032512_o_10157000369782264.jpg —‘TEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAITH’—

CLARIFICATION

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to find a means of limiting abrahamic means of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and pilpul and critique, from application outside of christian doctrine, thereby ending the ability to pursue marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism and other application of abrahamic persuasion (deceit) in the ongoing war against our people by the globalists (mostly semites and their allies).

The solutions were either prohibit, gain compromise, or give compromise, which is the ancient one that faced the romans when attempting to bring the jews into the empire.

The ‘give compromise’ is an exchange: “spiritual is true by faith, and material is true by law”. This frustrates both parties a bit but is the only truly reciprocal exchange under the law. And it works for christianity alone because the law also requires compatibility with natural law. Judaism and Islam as well as marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism are not compatible with the law.

So the remaining challenge is just to define christianity as some set of existing sects sharing some long standing tradition, limited to compliance with natural law AND the demarcation between the spiritual faith and the material law.

I felt it was not possible even to achieve this compromise, so it was better to state the law as the law, and grant christians a specific license under the law.

The exchange gives christianity peerage with the law. The exemption gives it permission under the law. And legal scholars will have to debate these things for centuries – because I cannot close the loophole of truthful speech because of the christian demand for identity between truth and myth.

So that is where I ended up. To avoid the question by specific license rather than compromising on the question as a difference between faith and law.

-CurtNick DahlheimH/t Dave Martel and John Mark—this is a fascinating response in light of your interview together Sunday….Feb 20, 2019, 1:30 PMDave MartelI have zero issue as a Heathen separating Law from faith/supernaturalism/mysticism.

But, also as a Heathen who lives his life with an understanding of metaphysics and spiritualism, I’m going to be very careful with anything that could possibly want to stifle or persecute what is dearest to me and my family.Feb 20, 2019, 1:38 PMEli Harman”Here, you can have a license to lie as long as you don’t do it in public.”

Something tells me the generosity of that offer will be lost on its intended recipients.Feb 20, 2019, 1:44 PMCurt Doolittlehence the burden of the definition of ‘christianity’Feb 20, 2019, 1:45 PMNick DahlheimAnd it is this attitude I’ve found so INCREDIBLY prevalent among the Heathen (and we are also disproportionately attracted to Propertarianism as opposed to conservative Christians)….and it is this attitude I love. It TOTALLY works with the letter and the spirit of Propertarian Law.Feb 20, 2019, 1:48 PMJohn MarkThank you for this clarification CurtFeb 20, 2019, 1:49 PMNick DahlheimThat’s why Christians must be segregated…..”The Benedict Option being the Only Option” (my official position on Christianity) was designed with this in mind….and they must pay a hefty tax in return for government services and martial protection….Feb 20, 2019, 1:49 PMNick DahlheimOne other option I’ve thought of—make Christian preachers have to have licenses to leave their “Benedict Option” communities…it will discourage evangelization.Feb 20, 2019, 1:54 PMCurt Doolittlenever happen. never have power without christians before the semites win control via underclasses.Feb 20, 2019, 1:55 PMNick DahlheimHmmmm…..Feb 20, 2019, 1:55 PMDaniel Roland AndersonI have a lot of Christian friends on the Right. All of them embrace a sect of Christianity that includes an ethno-nationalist component that puts a hard limit on the universalist, egalitarian aspects of Christianity.

Perhaps start with this ethnic component an identifier of sects that make sense.Feb 20, 2019, 2:30 PMCurt Doolittlethis is smart.Feb 20, 2019, 2:32 PMNick DahlheimChristianity used to be that way—and all of the denominations were remarkably stronger and more confident when that was the case prior to the civil rights and sexual revolutions of the 1960s….also, E. Michael Jones is right on this one point: the breakup of the old urban ethnic enclaves (most of whom were Catholic, but not all were–see the history of the Swedish enclave Andersonville in Chicago as a prime example) had a devastating impact on Catholics and to a slightly lesser degree mainline Protestants—their ethnic identity was weakened FIRST, and then their identification with their Christian denomination FOLLOWED. The data on this is clear when you set the 1960s as a marker and you see the steady secularization from that point forward—as well as civil rights and Hart-Cellar putting European demographics in jepoardy for the first timeFeb 20, 2019, 2:34 PMJesse Charles Tatsuoka FolsomI find the comparison to the Japanese approach fascinating in this situation. The Japanese are 95% (kinda) atheist or some such. At the same time, a large proportion put a huge store in ritual action. It is, so far as I can tell, essentially an amoralist society, less concerned with abstract ideas of “good” and “evil” than with what is functional in their society. While I don’t think being quite so uniform and regimented suits us in the West, I can at least say that in Japan, when, say, a nuclear disaster strikes, there is virtually no looting or rioting. Instead, the old line up to go in to deal with the radiation so the young don’t have to.Feb 20, 2019, 2:40 PMCurt Doolittlethey have the best system. just ‘how to get there’.

They are not amoral. just the opposite.

It’s just that they are homogenous.

So no need for artificial rules.Feb 20, 2019, 2:40 PMJesse Charles Tatsuoka FolsomI mean amoral in the Christian sense. In the sense that it’s not about comparison to some ultimately arbitrary set of rules supposedly set from on high. It is practical. If you don’t fit in to a criminal degree, it’s not because your values are “worse”. It’s just that they are incompatible with the rest of us. We don’t have to condemn you in a shaming sort of sense to remove your disruption by any means necessary. We aren’t absolutely better, there is no absolutely better, just the subjective comparison of values. We just agree and there are more of us than you.Feb 20, 2019, 2:44 PMJohn MarkDaniel Roland Anderson what sect(s) of Christianity are you referring to? (With hard limit on universalism via ethno-nationslism) Does such a thing exist in America? (Genuinely curious)Feb 20, 2019, 2:45 PMNick DahlheimI’m guessing some form of Christian Identity?Feb 20, 2019, 2:46 PMCurt Doolittle(european identity, full scope of our historical traditions)Feb 20, 2019, 2:47 PMDaniel Roland AndersonJohn Mark

Kinists come to mind. Christian Identity as well.Feb 20, 2019, 3:18 PMNick DahlheimCurt Doolittle I’m sure Belloc would prefer that to the Church under Bugoglio, aka FrancisFeb 20, 2019, 3:19 PMCorbus AureliusThe ethics is tied to the practicality of holding to an ethical system for the development of self and society. Action and consequence.Feb 20, 2019, 3:38 PMNick DahlheimCurt Doolittle Ding ding ding….and Black Pigeon Speaks did a great job in his most recent video illustrating thatFeb 20, 2019, 5:13 PMNick DahlheimJesse Charles Tatsuoka Folsom We can’t probably be as uniform as Japan, but we can copy their tight controls and emulate their in-group preferenceFeb 20, 2019, 5:14 PMDaniel Roland AndersonJohn Mark

This is an important topic. There are Catholics like Pat Buchanan and others who are strongly ethno-nationalist. Rik Storey could name some more I’m sure.

Many Protestants are hardcore ethno-nationalists.

I strongly suspect that these non-Universalist Christians would be more than willing to throw a Crusade to purge their religion of what they consider Leftist heresy.

If we could identify specifically which theological issues are inconsistent with Natural Law, that might give us a starting point to inquire as to whether non-Universalist sects might be potential supporters of Propertarianism, and allies against the Christian Left.Feb 20, 2019, 5:15 PMNick DahlheimDaniel Roland Anderson We probably still need a way to do that…we need to market correctly to push our numbers up but without sacrificing qualityFeb 20, 2019, 5:18 PMJohn MarkDaniel Roland Anderson shorthand: “no universalism”Feb 20, 2019, 6:03 PMNick DahlheimJohn Mark Yup….Pope Bugoglio’s church will not be tolerated. That of Pope JFH 1st (James Fox Higgins)….his Christianity will be toleratedFeb 20, 2019, 6:13 PMMichael ChurchillDaniel Roland Anderson It sure seems like searching for non-universalist Christians with a coherent understanding of WHY they are non-unilversalist is like searching for a needle in a haystack no?Feb 20, 2019, 7:43 PMDaniel Roland AndersonJohn Mark

Well, universalism is definitely out. I wonder what else are poison pills that I’m missing.

I’m just mostly glad Christianity is in my rear view mirror personally—but Christianity matters.Feb 20, 2019, 7:44 PMJohn MarkDaniel Roland Anderson another poison pill – kissing rear ends of the chosenFeb 20, 2019, 8:06 PMJohn MarkMichael Churchill that was my initial reaction tooFeb 20, 2019, 8:06 PMDaniel Roland AndersonJohn Mark

I’ll see if I can call in and SME.Feb 20, 2019, 8:07 PMJohn MarkThough I would be willing to bet there are fairly large numbers of Christians that are finished with the whole “being nice to ungrateful/duplicitous nonwhite immigrants” thing. Like JFH. We can tap into them.Feb 20, 2019, 8:15 PMDavid CarrBy a common hindrance we share built into this language we use, our vernacular came to rest on the words we forge as disconnected from the import of the letters that compose them. You might note that Hebrew, Japanese Kanji and Arabic script (as well as most notable historical languages, and all modern asian languages) impart a legend of symbols when teaching their alphabets, a table of definitions. We, the flock of Rome, forewent such a legend in favor of a round of song, re-purposed.

I posit that one or all of the Roman factions of the time purposely installed a vacuum where our symbol definitions would have helped those symbols hold their form over the centuries. Instead they fermented, coming to represent the totality of human sensory experience instead of merely reinforcing cultural assumption. We became daring, creative. We excelled in conquest and discovery. All this at the cost of social cohesion and general discipline in comparison to the speakers of more traditional languages.

Now, we founder. Our societies crumble, lacking the social backbone we don’t even know the need for. Luckily, the ferment is complete, and S’word has been drawn from S’tone. The true study of noetic science can begin.

https://davidiclineage.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/newest-draft-davidic-legend/Feb 20, 2019, 8:29 PMBill JoslinWe cannot grant special license nor peerage equal to law because that is what has gotten us to where we are today. It’s our death sentence.

A strict and impermeable wall between via negativa as well as application of power (law) by that constraint (public) from via positiva production of commons and goods (private).Feb 20, 2019, 9:28 PMJames Fox HigginsMy Christianity belongs in whole to no existing sect. The more I look at Church history from all perspectives the more I see weakness and/or corruption. I walk apart from the Church, though I love those within it.

My kind of heresy would need to be cogently developed to form any kind of institution. Give me ten more years.Feb 20, 2019, 10:01 PMNick DahlheimInterestingFeb 20, 2019, 10:07 PMDavid CarrIt seems to me precise legalism would entail an understanding of such roots, but of course that could just be me.Feb 20, 2019, 10:08 PMAubrey HarperDaniel Roland Anderson et al, the Amish and Quakers haven’t suffered the corruption of other sects and they aren’t even receptive to other outgroup non-kin Whites, let alone 3rd Worlders

They are the perfect model for hearth and kin based Christianity (plus electricity)Feb 20, 2019, 10:54 PMDaniel Roland AndersonChesley MillerFeb 21, 2019, 3:24 AMWilliam L. BengeI’m astonished this group’s framing goes wild, and even brings Christianity into a false dichotomy: presents it as some sort of force or belief-set opposed to heathenism.

Look. The cruelty finds origin not in some sincere quiet souls cast into the Roman circus, torn apart by lions. No, but in the desperation of the state.

A cleric is one bureaucrat in a system of bureaucrats, who at the first served his emperor (state), but later turned. These are not the quiet souls.

Why does this not have meaning to you? This is a problem.

Secondly, power corrupts and behold our chambers of power deliver just as expected. Many Italian names (history) and Latin documents (evidence) testify to the same regards Christendom.

Are there lessons missed? Maybe?

This road can become as smooth or bumpy as we force it to be. Volition.Feb 22, 2019, 10:40 AMNick DahlheimI agree with this—but, we have this huge practical burden of Christianity’s legacy over our culture that represents a practical burden…..even though their numbers are dwindling, the Churches still have a lot of people, even high-quality people (even though most churchgoers tend to come from the lower classes—so they won’ get these arguments). Moreover, Christianity has cast a pall over the way all of us think and “feel” and “intuit.” So, there’s a need to deal with it delicately with normies. Don’t get me wrong I’m one of the loudest voices here for Asatru over Christianity.Feb 22, 2019, 10:44 AMWilliam L. BengeRegards our modern heathens, we ought to respectfully warn:

Be wary of seeking advantage for recourse, prestige. Always bow to the greater rules of the competition. Honor is as important as the contest. The Romans provide ample lessons as to why.

PLEASE NOTE:

Curt goes far to respect the marketplace of ideas, even where the marketplace is the heart and mind of man.

What we recognize as according nature: internal coherence, external correspondence.

What is truthful?

Aye, for the one man to apply this test to self (for self)(for others)(for things) creates his personal journey into his own thoughts, and for which no law could ever restrict him.

God bless such a man.

What the market provides can create upset and surprise, both good and bad, and often does.Feb 22, 2019, 11:10 AMWilliam L. BengeAffirmativeFeb 22, 2019, 11:17 AMWilliam L. BengeThe idea I had in mind was that Christianity = heathenism, but what most feel is Christianity (a modern superstructure) detracts from Jesus grounded sensible ideas. Humble, quiet, effective, healthy and wholesome, a working way.

Did Caesar cast his pompous clergy (state employees) ($$$) into the circus with wild animals for sport, or did he instead feed the lower people of hearth (heathen) and home into his freakish foul machination?

These are aspects of truthfulness the marketplace will have to sort out. If we turn our noses up at any new or old evidence that presents itself anew, we probably wont escape punishment, usually in the way of frustrating progress elsewhere, countering disambiguation.Feb 22, 2019, 11:45 AMNick DahlheimWell, if I were Caesar now—I’d cast the pompous clergy (state employees as well as academics, financiers, media people, and politicians) ($$$) into the circus with wild animals for sport…..:PFeb 22, 2019, 11:49 AMWilliam L. BengeMan, I do like the way your mind works brother! 😀

BOOMFeb 22, 2019, 11:50 AMWilliam L. BengeNASCAR has standards they enforce. They’ll demand to check under the hood and where ever else on the vehicle they want to check. Veracity.

“We’re going to need to check the measurements. Please step clear.”

“C’mon now. Y’all know the drill.”Feb 22, 2019, 12:07 PMBill Joslin(I keep my heathenry at my hearth were it belongs)Feb 22, 2019, 1:15 PM—‘TEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAITH’—

CLARIFICATION

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to find a means of limiting abrahamic means of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and pilpul and critique, from application outside of christian doctrine, thereby ending the ability to pursue marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism and other application of abrahamic persuasion (deceit) in the ongoing war against our people by the globalists (mostly semites and their allies).

The solutions were either prohibit, gain compromise, or give compromise, which is the ancient one that faced the romans when attempting to bring the jews into the empire.

The ‘give compromise’ is an exchange: “spiritual is true by faith, and material is true by law”. This frustrates both parties a bit but is the only truly reciprocal exchange under the law. And it works for christianity alone because the law also requires compatibility with natural law. Judaism and Islam as well as marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism are not compatible with the law.

So the remaining challenge is just to define christianity as some set of existing sects sharing some long standing tradition, limited to compliance with natural law AND the demarcation between the spiritual faith and the material law.

I felt it was not possible even to achieve this compromise, so it was better to state the law as the law, and grant christians a specific license under the law.

The exchange gives christianity peerage with the law. The exemption gives it permission under the law. And legal scholars will have to debate these things for centuries – because I cannot close the loophole of truthful speech because of the christian demand for identity between truth and myth.

So that is where I ended up. To avoid the question by specific license rather than compromising on the question as a difference between faith and law.

-Curt

Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 13:25:00 UTC

February 20, 2019
THOROUGH TREATMENT OF CURRENT POSITION ON CHRISTIAN RELIGION. As I’ve stated rep

THOROUGH TREATMENT OF CURRENT POSITION ON CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

As I’ve stated repeatedly, and especially recently.

0. Propertarianism’s natural law consists largely of the extension of fraud protection from commerce to all walks of life. This has been necessary to save our people from extermination, because of their genetic, cultural, and religious vulnerability to false promise and sophism (fraud).

1. Our people are being conquered in the present by the use of a particular technique invented by the ancient jews, and practiced today: false promise and baiting into moral hazard, and argued with pilpul (justificationary sophism) and critique (critical sophism).

2. Marxism (working classes), Postmodernism(intellectual classes), Feminism( women) and denialism (political classes) are simply another means of defeating europeans in the present using the same techniques as judaism (undermining) , christianity (weakening), and islam (conquering) in the ancient world. And we were only saved in the past by the restoration of aryanism by the northern europeans in both the old and new worlds.

3. The abrahamic religions are a cancer to mankind: judaism, christianity, and islam and they have destroyed or nearly destroyed (us), every great civilization of the ancient world. They are, figuratively, the most dysgenic thing that has ever happened to mankind, with only Manorialism, aggressive hanging of troublemakers, wars, and harsh Winters providing resistance to genetic cultural and institutional regression.

4. However among those lies exists the optimum group strategy which is the reason that christianity assists primitive people in developing a middle class:

a) that the commons is sacred – meaning not for personal consumption or cost imposition.

b) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. c) the extension of kinship love to non-kin.

d) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost,

e) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

This strategy is, *scientifically* the optimum group evolutionary strategy – if limited to the IN GROUP.

5. But Christianity is not limited to the in group and universal meaning it is suicidal. The strategy has a very limited range of success, and that is about the rate at which we produce generations. And therefore we cannot use this strategy in concert with immigration (invasion).

6. But christianity says we are equal and we are not. Many people are either a dead weight or harm to the population and are best removed from it – but since others do the job of outcasing christians ‘free ride’ (break christian rule).

7. But christians do not perform personal acts of charity today. they do the opposite. They virtue signal. And as such are no longer christian. Since without personal (not monetary, but interpersonal) acts of charity one is no longer a christian just a claim to the benefits of christianity, without paying the costs of it.

8. The churches and christianity are in decline, impoverished, closing and absent a new generation of members (a certain death) for the simple reason: that the only religious group that reformed post-darwin were the evangelicals. They moved to jesus rather than god, they moved to mindfulness rather than submission, and they retained family, and they emphasized personal relationships and large scale gatherings. The mormons have an exceptional social order but are running out of population to convert, have broken ethnicity, and have not adjusted accordingly. These are common problems of businesses that cannot produce results without new products or new customers. Orthodoxy is less political and more ritualistic and seems to have survived simply by not seeking to obtain or retain the political and economic power of the protestant and catholic churches. Catholicism as unabashedly given up on europe and anglodom, and is an african and south american and east asian religion today – because it cannot reform nor can it survive without economic rents it had under the middle ages.

9. I cannot and will not leave a ‘hole’ in the law for abrahamists (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul(justificationary sophism) and critique (critical sophism), and the associated straw manning (distraction and overloading), to once again come back and attempt to harm my people with their frauds. This would mean not solving the problem permanently – and our law must do so for our survival.

10. I have deflated and disambiguated religion into its requisite components. These components serve only one purpose, and that is to provide mindfulness that is necessary given the our prey response and related neuroticism given the uncertainty of human scale of cooperation – more so than the suffering (borderline starvation) and disease endemic under agrarian life. and even more so given the current problem of the dissolution of the family – the only remaining tribe in which can insure its members.

11. These components consist of:

(a) some method of obtaining mindfulness, through some sort of ritual,

(b) some mythology that provides a common group competitive strategy across the clases permitting cooperation without conflict toward a shared end between peoples of vast difference in ability, value, and resources,

(c) ritual of recitation, oath and feast to demonstrate and reinforce and repeat investment in that strategy,

(d) festival feast sport and holiday that again reduce the differences between the classes, and reinforce the sense of reciprocity and proportionality that the (purely analytic) subconscious mind requires to maintain trust

(c) the intergenerational transfer of familial and social debt obligations.

And these religions evolved in this sequence:

(a) burying the dead (mindfulness over loss by paying debts)

(b) celebrating victories or hunts (by paying debts)

(c) sacrifice (making a deposit )

(d) seasons (deposit and debt payment)

(e) organizing plantings and harvests (forecasting)

(f) a political religion (organizing a large illiterate society under storytelling )

(g) an undermining religion – reversing evolution and power by undermining the aristocracy with writing and speech.

(h) pseudoscientific religion – conducting warfare against a people with false economic promise and political promise, rather than life after death.

12. A religion is not what it claims or its doctrine mandates or wisdom literature advises, but the result of their observation and practice regardless of those claims. A study of world religions through time illustrates quite clearly that while each religious system provides some benefits it comes at great cost.

(a) Gypsies and Judaism through persecution by hosts for their survival by parasitism. They are throughout history parasitic peoples. Gypsies through petty theft and prostitution, judaism through undermining, baiting into moral hazard, allying with the state, and seeking rents against the people, their culture their norms and their institutions; and islam directly so under physical threat forcible indoctrination, taxation into submission, rather than cunning and manipulation and deceit.

(b) Islam results in internal genetic, cultural, and institutional decline (accumulated capital consumption) and the inability to develop a central government, a bureaucratic class free of corruption, an educated populace, and a demographic distribution sufficient for scientific literacy and cognition.

(c) Christianity, vulnerability to deception, vulnerability to military conquest, insulation from scientific knowledge, and escapism over action, leaving a minority of the aristocratic class to parent the society in order to protect it from the same decline as islam.

(d) Buddhism detachment from reality, and the incentive for tolerance rather than action – leaving the aristocratic chinese-confucian and the martial japanese paternal classes to parent these civilizations. and the people in stasis rather than decline.

(e) Hinduism is hard to judge but it is perhaps the most honest religion, but leaves the people vulnerable to conquest by every single group that happens to wander by. Whether this is a result of demographics or the religion is something difficult to understand. But the general orderliness and pacifism of the religion and the politics, the submissiveness of the people, the lack of a militia left india vulnerable to divide and conquer politically, and easy conquest militarily. Russia has her winters and scale, but india has her population and scale, and both are difficult to defeat in the long run for reasons not related to their culture or wisdom. Pakistan is the center of ancient india and hit has been conquered and taken and is now hostile to the core of the remaining civlization.

In the old world, secular indian thought, chinese secular thought, and european secular thought appear to be the only thought of value in the world for organising a large ignorant, unintelligent, superstitious, poor underclass such that they produce sufficient income that the patriarchal aristocracy can hold the territory from conquest. The rest was just habit.

We cannot know this yet but it is likely that groups simply do then as today, practice grammars of allegory on one end and rason on the other depending upon the median of the distribution of the population and that the reason for secular and scientific rise is largely due not only to trade but to eugenic culling of the classes dependent upon superstition and deceit for survival.

12. The west’s organizing property was the common law. The gods were not superiors but those to be tolerated or asked, or those that we might ascend into by heroism. This resulted in aa separation of rule (law) and festival (religion) rather than the totalitarian conflation of religion and law. Leaving open a competition. Greeks invented reason and moral law. Romans invented empirical law and disavowed greek idealism – in concert with traditional european tradition. The greco anatolians brought up epicureanism and stoicism as means of providing the middle and upper middle classes with mindfulness possible in the world of reason. The romans expanded it. so as far as I know the law, ancestor thanks, archetypal thanks (proxies for kin and nature)and stoicism are the only ‘good’ religions, free of the vulnerabilities of semitic deceit and the cancer they bring to each civilization.

13. So I know how to allow our natural religion to emerge by combining the good of christianity and the good of ancestor and nature thanks (intergenerational transfer of debts), buand I now ow to use stoicism and ritual and festival and oath to restore our people. I know how to restore religion (teaching, education) to a central function of the social order. I know that wit enough time the religions will adapt to natural incentives. But I do not know how to do this without either engaging in abrahamic lying myself (pilpul) or prohibiting the church from making claims that everything in christianity is either children’s story or lie, and that we must take the wisdom from it despite its falsehood rather than claim that any of it is true. And yes, I understand that the reason these religions function is that they are producing a natural drug response within the brain’s reward system, and that followers experience an addiction response when threatened and defend the source of their addiction to the death. I understand the underlying psychology of disintermediation by fictional characters and the value this has to the human mind – particularly the dim, vulnerable, and undisciplined.

14. Worse I undrestand that our history alone is that of gods ourselves, for a having dragged mankind out of ignorance and superstition, an poverty, and disease. And it is our people, our kin, and our civilization in the pre christian and post christian worlds that did so. And that this comparison between truth and lies makes the semitic people and their death cults look like the peasantry they are, and the liars they are, and the low trust people they are, and the cancer pon making that they are. So why submit to the gods of evil and failed parasitic and destructive peoples who are a cancer upon mankind and the bringers of ignorance and superstition and dark ages – rather than give thanks (pay debt) our own ancestors, our own ancient gods (archetypes), our own heroes and our own achievements, and the beauty, wonder, and plenty of nature itself?

15. If we are to survive, we must survive the semites, and their death cults of judaism, christianity, and islam, and the language of death and deceit we call abraham: false promise, baiting into moral hazard, an the sophisms of pilpul and critique.

16. It is thru the window of Christianity and the submissiveness that these people lie, bait, guilt, invade, and destroy us. If Christianity is our weakness, than I see it must be reformed from a semitic death cult to the history of a very simple man, the son of a roman solider and a jewish prostitute, with a very simple message of love for one another and the end of predation upon one another. And the rest of Saul of Tarsus’ lies must be gone forever. Along with the excuses for those lies we call theology and doctrine, and the long literature of our defeat, conquest, and submission. Instead, law, science, truth, and history and the glory and divinity of our people .

17. So in the conflict between the future our ouf people, and your addiction to a death cult and the means of lying within that death cult – and the promise of a new religion that takes the best of all, and one of the lies, I chose the new: Our own. My people. Our people. The european people – those people that have dragged humanity from a victim of nature to its master. Man is now god he imagined. But he is so because of the indo european people, and in particular the people of europe and their stange law in the ancient and modern world, while the chinese hid behind their desert and walls and left the hard labor of resisting the animals to us. We have been at war with the semites since we crossed the bosphorus. And they have been winning for all but the past hundred years. Time to end the war – and separate from them and prohibit them and their ideas from our lands, our minds, and our religions. Because the alternative is our extinction or theirs.

Curt Doolittle

February 2019

Source date (UTC): 2019-02-15 10:19:00 UTC

February 15, 2019