A LITTLE CONTEXT FOR WHEN I USE “MONARCHY”
Rule of Law Monarchy (Strictly Constructed Natural Law)
Constitutional Monarchy (Traditional Articulated Rights law)
Christian Monarch (Church Sanctioned Customary Law)
King ( Private Property Traditional Customary European Law )
Imperial Tzar (Military Arbitrary Ruler – Post Mongol Russia )
Imperial Caesar (Military Arbitrary Ruler – Pagan Europe)
State Dictator – (Military Arbitrary Ruler)
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 12:10:00 UTC
The qualities of a king (christian monarch to be precise) have to do with the entire family, not the king himself. And great kings are not what we’re looking for. That’s a via-positiva. We’re looking for constitutional monarchs that handle exceptions and prevent usurpation of power, not those who govern.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 11:52:00 UTC
Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary method making possible the test of possibility of testimony under performative (deflationary) truth.
Popper wasn’t able to get that far. He was partly correct in parsimony but couldn’t define it without market competition. He correctly stated that in the absence of omniscience we can only claim truthfulness not ideal truth. He confused verisimilitude with competing markets. He had no empirical evidence of decidability for scientific exploration although it appears cost determines it. Kuhn’s correctly converts to markets for paradigms increasing the scale from the individual to the network. He poorly articulates but correctly articulates that the explanatory power of networks reach limits as do all economic organizations, thereby exhausting opportunity for explanatory power, which leads to punctuated equilibrium (as in biology). Wilson suggests that underneath all of these similarities is a universal rule of all sciences (which I think my work provides the structure of). Kuhn fails to identify that operational vocabulary evolves semantic incommensurability to semantic commensurability, the same way that paradigms evolve.
So, the progress from aristotle to newton to einstein to Planck-Pauli-heisenberg-shrodinger (and the current regression seeded by bohr) is merely the evolution of special cases to general cases. In kuhn’s second attempt he also failed to solve the incommensurability problem for the same reason popper was stuck with scale – failing to grasp that logic is falsificationary and only justificationary in special cases, and that deduction is just another means of free association by which we identify candidates. of course there is much more that can be said but the point is that there is no such thing as proof of anything other than internal consistency of claims. Otherwise the only closure is demonstration.
In other words, science is indifferent from legal adversarial contest (market) – and that is why europeans invented reason, empiricism, and science: the application european traditional law of sovereigns, in adversarial competition before the market, dependent upon evidence and testimony where testimony must be observable, and actions possible, under realism and naturalism and human incentives for action under bounded rationality.
As such science consists in testifying to any claims by the continued application of testimony and evidence, ever converging through adversarial competition to increasingly parsimonious vocabulary and increasingly commensurable paradigms, u
How one conducts scientific investigation is merely a craft like any other. What demarcates science from non-science is the testifiabilty of the claims made. As such all science like all testimony is merely a market falsification leaving only (a) undecidability due to insufficiency, (b) a truth candidate (Truthful Speech) with permanently open falsifiability, and (c) falsified.
So when I say “I discovered truth” I discovered the completion of methodology for falsifying claims, and used that discovery to produce a value neutral language across all disciplines, and most importantly the value neutral language of explaining all language regardless of discipline.
The reason we know I’m correct is it’s explanatory power at present appears limitless. We even have a table of grammars that cover the spectrum from deflationary (logics) to ordinary, to inflationary (storytelling) to fictionalisms (pseudoscience, idealism, and theology), to the deceits. So we have ‘periodic table of speech’.
And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
The explanatory power is there.
On average it takes about six months for those with some legal, some economic, some scientific, and some software backgrounds to understand, and about two to four years to put into practice like any other technical discipline. It’s not like you’re going to find holes in it without quite a bit of time. And even if you spent the time we tend not to find holes only to increase precision.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 11:28:00 UTC
COMPATIBILITY ELEVATES, EQUALITY REDUCES
—“Compatibility elevates men and women to their opposite’s strengths. Equality reduces men and women to their opposite’s weaknesses. … This observation of the differences between compatibility and equality applies to all disparate individuals and groups including Genders, Maturity, Generations, Classes, Ethnicities, Nations, Civilizations, or Races.”—Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 10:40:00 UTC
You create a movement with ideas that sell themselves because they provide value to people by solving problems of the age – not by enthusiasm. Inspiration’s half life is 24 hours. A solution’s value lasts as long as there is a market for it.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 10:09:00 UTC
—“Universal suffrage will eventually cause universal suffering.”—Clifton Knox
(Democracy is the slow road to communism. -hoppe)
–“I am in favor of earned cumulative meritocratic suffrage based on demonstrated generational loyalty (military, political, social, legal, intellectual/scientific, economic, artistic)), investment in the commons, level of leadership, Territorial acquisition and settlement, establishment, leadership and defense of core instituons etc.
Patriotic American families with deep roots and demonstrated excellence over the generations in building up our country and nation will have accumulated the most voting rights (no more one man one vote). (Houses are a better solution)
Recent immigrants whose ancestors have contributed nothing or even taken from the country by drawing down welfare or voting irreciprocally will have no franchise rights.
Each generation is accounted for.
This system restores power to the WASP families that founded and built America and disempowers our enemies and rivals for power. It is also just.”—Scott De Warren
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 10:07:00 UTC
BUILDING COMMUNITY
I think you should imitate bill’s technique. We use my feed to identify candidates that you then recruit. After a while you will be able to recruit your own people without my feed. Then once you have ‘got the message down’ enough, make a few dozen videos (it takes that many) and recruit by video. This creates a community. We are building a network of communities of common interest. All built on P but addressing the needs or wants of people living lives with different contexts and therefore different demands from P.
Video > Public Feed > Private Group that meets regularly to discuss a topic in the king of the hill(male) or socrates cafe(female) model > ‘a leadership team’ that keeps track of the development of the group and tries to move the group along > “A Mission” > Courseware.
Do not try to make money. It doesn’t work.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 10:05:00 UTC
WOMEN’S MOVEMENT FOR NATURAL LAW
—I think it’s better for women to create solidarity with women on ending the program of undermining that women were baited into with the false promise of equality rather than the promise of improving our compatibility under change in the division of labor made possible by the industrial and technological and informational revolutions.
I think if you ask women to join to help build this ‘movement’ of getting past GSRRM and ending undermining, thereby restoring compatibility, cooperation, in a division of perceptual, cognitive, and physical labor that this will be a mission women will be attracted to, because it will make women better women with regard to OTHER WOMEN as well as with regard to mates children – and even other men.
Men had to learn not to physically retaliate. Law is a vehicle for ending retaliation cycles (feuds). Women have not had the political, economic, or social opportunity to develop female traditions, so that women learn not to SOCIALLY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY retaliate and end women’s retaliation cycles (feuds).—
We aren’t equal. Genders, Maturity, Generations, Classes, Ethnicities, Nations, Civilizations, or Races.
Under natural law of reciprocity and division of labor we are compatible despite all those inequalities.
End retaliation cycles by sticking to reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 09:49:00 UTC
End universal enfranchisement and we end the problem. That’s not hard to do.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 09:45:00 UTC
WHY ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS COMMENTARY?
—“I’ve been following John Mark for some time now and generally agree with your observations on politics, the media and the way our country is headed and what conservatives need to do about it. However I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning. This reminds a great deal of the way Karl Marx viewed religion bad “an opiate for the masses.” It worried me also in that you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity, put “In God We Trust” on our money and whose great founders and leaders prayed often and diligently for guidance and wisdom for the course of our country. If you try to turn our country around without a true belief in God you will have not saved this country but perhaps create a different sort of democracy devoid of God and all the foundations that have made this the greatest nation in the world and it will fail miserably. I would hope you will stay out of the theology business that most of the true Patriots of this country believe in and stick to the more obvious analysis of politics and trends in general. Otherwise you can count me and perhaps many others out of your “Winning Right.”—Joel Rhodes
Going to answer two points you’ve made:
1) —“I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning.”—
My objective is to end the undermining of western civilization by the use of the abrahamic method of deceit, upon which were built the first system of anti-religious-market lies of judaism, christianity, and islam, and the second anti-political-market lies: marxism, postmodernism, feminism – and the continued durability of judaism, christianity, and islam as monopolistic totalitarian religions. So I struggle with reforming christianity so that the teachings of Jesus are retained, but the abrahamic method of deceit by which christianity is justified is removed. At present we must make excuses in the constitution for the preservation of a single method of lying using the abrahamic method of deceit to preserve the good in christianity and the tolerance of the christian center.
In other words, the only problem we face today is that christians use the jewish means of lying to justify christian religion, instead of reforming the church so that it is – as we see in some protestant churches – a continuous lesson in psychology(mindfulness) – where jesus’ teaching is the most primitive and effective method of using group therapy to program individuals into mindfuless. the stoic method is not as effective for common people because it is requires intellectual exercise. So it is of its nature a middle and upper class means of mindfuless. Yet evidence says that we can like our ancestors or japan combine multiple traditions to achieve our ends. And that is part of my work
To produce a social order free of the abrahamic method of deceit, so that we are no longer vulnerable to the abrahamic method of deceit.
2) —“you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity”—
This country was founded by men who were members of the enlightenment, for who god varied – just as today – between (a) a euphemism for the laws of the universe and god the anthropomorphic character we attribute to it, (b) the uninvolved abstract god of deism while maintains that there may be some abstract force we anthropomorphize as god, (c) jesus as a philosopher of speaking in religious prose under one of those gods, (d) jesus as a prophet, and god as existential. (e) full dogmatic fundamentalists who believe everything is determined by god and the bible is the literal word of god. And that, just as I go to church recite words, and just as Jefferson did, that does not mean that those of us who are secular and philosophical are merely performing a ritual for the benefit of all of us across that spectrum, and whose of us who are theological are doing it for the god and prophet for which we hope to benefit ourselves and the polity.
So, I’ll give you the opposing theory: that for aristocracy, christianity was an excuse for Aryanism (superiority), and religion is a means of controlling the vast ignorant underclasses. For the priesthood that came from the nobility or middle classes it was a means of earning income from administering a vast illiterate ignorant underclass by false promise and pacifying them. And that by and large – just as postmodernism is practiced by the academy and urbanites and traditionalism by the rurals, through almost all of the dark ages, the church was as corrupt as we know perceive our state, only the city dwellers gave it lip service, and the people were christian only at church, and the rest of the time maintained their traditional germanic paganism.
So if you mean ‘the people were ignorant and illiterate farmers and laborers who were administered into christian pacifism and tolerance for one another, and that the aristocracy was always practiced war and law and property just as those of us today with agency and recourses practice property, economic warfare, political warfare, and organize the laboring classes to conduct war” then yes. But do not for a moment confuse the fact that in western civilization, we practice Tripartism intellectually and trifunctionalism institutionally, and that the military, judicial, and theological priesthoods were all present at all times, and we allied with the most important to us at any given moment – just like today.
The warning I am giving you is one that only a few thinkers give in each era, with sun tzu and machiavelli the most well known. That is: (a) do not confuse that your primary framework for understanding the organization of western civilization isn’t just a class framework (b) that all three frameworks are always and everywhere present, (c) that what binds them together isn’t any one of the three, but sovereignty, and the three possible methods of coercion force trifunctionalism, which forces tripartism. We are all european if and only if we are the people of who use markets in everything – and this is why the church failed here and only succeeded in the (underclass) middle east – almost everyone was at the bottom, and so religion brought them there. In the west we have classes and we move between them as needed.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 09:44:00 UTC