Source: Facebook

  • YES I ANSWER MANY QUESTIONS. (at least intellectually honest ones) —“Hello. I

    YES I ANSWER MANY QUESTIONS.

    (at least intellectually honest ones)

    —“Hello. I started flying through writing on your website after stumbling upon an interview with John Mark. Would you be comfortable with me asking you questions about the ideology as I come across them.”–

    Of course. It’s my Job.

    But it’s not ideology. I’m not sure it’s philosophy, technically it’s a formal science of law. I don’t like that categorization that conflates formal logics with evidentiary science, so I tend to just call it what it is: the completion of the scientific method meaning that all science is now a branch of the law, and philosophy is now relegated to choice. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 23:36:00 UTC

  • Apr 9, 2020, 11:12 PM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzLfL1WyGME&feature=shareUpdated Apr 9, 2020, 11:12 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 23:12:00 UTC

  • if it is anywhere near possible, always homeschool your kids

    if it is anywhere near possible, always homeschool your kids


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 23:08:00 UTC

  • Updated Apr 9, 2020, 11:07 PM

    Updated Apr 9, 2020, 11:07 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 23:07:00 UTC

  • THE JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW – ON THE LEFT 0. Reciprocity is the only reason for bot

    THE JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW – ON THE LEFT

    0. Reciprocity is the only reason for both sides to refrain from predation, parasitism, or boycott – cooperation or the option to cooperate is more valuable than non-cooperation, and the prevention of future cooperation.

    1. We create reciprocity via negativa by not imposing costs on others demonstrated interests

    2. The name we use for Demonstrated interests is property.

    3. In P-Law we use property in toto as the definition of property, meaning the empirical evidence of what demonstrated interests people defend.

    4. We are all dependent upon the informational commons for information.

    5. Some of us will defend the informational commons (or any commons) from other’s abuse of it. Some will not.

    6. When you make a truth claim to others, or others make a truth claim to you, the person making the claim can, if he errs, biases, justifies, or deceives, violates reciprocity with the audience (what we call unethical), causes you to harm the informational commons as a consequence (by externality), and if he makes that claim in public, harms the informational commons as well, and therefore violates reciprocity in the commons (what we call immorality).

    7. P-Law provides a definition of truth, and the means of falsifying (testing) statements for truthfulness by tests of testifiable, consistency, operational possibility, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity, completeness, full accounting, and possibility of warranty, and possibility of restitution upon error or deceit.

    8. Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by:

    (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.

    (b) that the solution was communism, or socialism, that would end our natural selection, our prosperity, and our competitive advantage, and our ability to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, and victimization by nature – when all civilizations that have tried any form of equality have died.

    (c) that to bring about communism, socialism, and the reversal of evolutionary transcendence, it was necessary to undermine our civlization at every level.

    Monopoly statism to undermine our tripartism.

    Atheism to undermine our tripartism.

    Anti-militarism to undermine our tripartism.

    Anti-rule of law to undermine not only our tripartism but the means by which we resolved disputes between the classes.

    Marxism to undermine the markets and cooperation between the classes.

    Cultural Marxism to undermine our culture, values, myths, traditions, and arts.

    Feminism to undermine the family as the compromise between the genders given our different reproductive strategies and biological differences.

    Postmodernism to undermine our ability to use social pressure to force conformity into realism, naturalism, operationalism, reciprocity, truthful speech, and defense of the commons so that it was optimu for the production of high trust citizenry; and again,postmodernism to deny the existence of truth or truthful speech – when truthful speech is the primary reason for not only our high trust society but our ‘european means of sense-making’ that made empiricism our laws, democratic participation, our science, medicine, and technology, possible.

    Postmodernism to use language for any purpose by which to obtain political power – abandoning all need for consistency, correspondence, rationality and liability.

    Political correctness to undermine the truth of the substantial differences between our advanced, neotenic, genetically, informationally, normatively, culturally, traditionally, and institutional superior people, so that they can be conquered quietly and slowly.

    Using immigration to reverse our darwinian history.

    Using frailty in our law and democracy to capture our territory and institutions.

    Using the academy to indoctrinate two generations of marxist-postmodernist-feminist-HBD-denialist “Priests and Priestesses” to indoctrinate our children by manufacturing their ignorance, feminizing our males, and making obese both genders.

    That’s only part of what they’ve done. I’ve just run out of tolerance for listing their crimes.

    JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW

    If the informational, normative, traditional, and institutional commons is common property of a people, then the (((anti-western left))) is an organized crime syndicate invading and conquering from within, in violation of the Westphalian peace. And as such these people are prosecutable for war crimes, and we shall have our restitution.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 23:02:00 UTC

  • TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY” (complete definition

    TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY”

    (complete definition of truth for newbs)

    WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES

    1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

    2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

    3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

    4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    5. Reasonableness: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    6. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    1. Satisfies the Demand for *Increasing Infallibility of Decidability

    GIVEN

    The Series:

    1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.

    3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.

    4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.

    5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.

    7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)

    8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity

    9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

    WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:

    1. Complete Sentences

    2. In promissory form

    3. In testimonial form

    4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)

    5. absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)

    6. including all changes in state

    7. including all consequences of change in state

    8. from an observer’s point of view

    9. producing a series of testable transactions.

    WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS:

    Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

    1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)

    Internally Consistent (Logical)

    2. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)

    3. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)

    4. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)

    5.Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)

    6. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)

    7. Warrantied

    … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;

    … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;

    … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

    AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:

    1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;

    2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;

    3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;

    4. And the many Deceits of:

    … (a) Loading and Framing;

    … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;

    … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;

    … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF:

    Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of:

    … (a) productive

    … (b) fully informed, fully accounted

    … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability

    … (d) voluntary

    … (e) free of externality of the same criteria

    INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

    The Series of:

    … (a) murder,

    … (b) harm, damage, theft,

    … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard

    … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,

    … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,

    … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience),

    … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding),

    … (ah) conquest (war).

    ===

    That I know of that, is the most complete definition of truth available.

    You might think there is some way to outwit it… but you’ll be wrong. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 22:09:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 20:37:00 UTC

  • In Truth Victoriousfacebook.comUpdated Apr 9, 2020, 8:37 PM

    In Truth Victoriousfacebook.comUpdated Apr 9, 2020, 8:37 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 20:37:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92550418_253178319413662_19408688775

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92550418_253178319413662_19408688775

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/92550418_253178319413662_1940868877516800000_n_253178316080329.jpg


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 20:32:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM The problem for Christianity is that it only has one thing to trade

    THE PROBLEM

    The problem for Christianity is that it only has one thing to trade -psychological comfort – or what we call mindfulness – and only half or less of the population is buying it. It doesn’t have ENOUGH to trade for the rest of the population to buy it. Yet christians are desperately trying to sell to a saturated market and in doing so losing market share. Instead what Christians, pagans, heathens, traditionalists, constitutionalists and seculars have to trade is unity against the enemy that would destroy our civilization – christian, pagan, heathen, traditional, constitutionalist, and secular.

    So sell the the only thing the market will buy:

    Unity in self defense.

    Unity in Offense.

    And Unity in Victory.

    Because selling monopoly is failing everyone.

    You can’t have control.

    You can only preserve our trifunctionalism: the equilibrium of military, legal, and religious -each in defense of the other.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 20:29:00 UTC