Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” 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 particularlaws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common lawor higher lawthat 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 Aristotle’s “higher law,” 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 354—430) 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 Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The 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.” (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.

  • 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 what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” 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 particularlaws that each people has set up for itself, there is a common lawor higher lawthat 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 Aristotle’s “higher law,” 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 354—430) 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 Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The 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.” (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.

  • Podcast: Pivot To Good Government

    Pivot To Good Government

    OVERVIEWEMPHASIS 1 – Emphasize policy (benefits) 2 – Emphasize Light Secession (decentralization of norms) 2 – Emphasize constitution (processes and procedures) 3 – Emphasize means of demand (actions to produce implementation.) MESSAGE: SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE -EVERYONE WINS 4 – Maintain “Something for Everyone, but no Monopoly” …. (a) Rights of exit, secession, voluntary disassociation for all. …. (b) State religion for christians (god/jesus), pagans(hero gods), heathens (kin) …. (c) Rule of law, devolution, secession for the libertarians …. (d) Separatism for the nationalists …. (e) Strong Man “Lite” for the fascists. …. (f) National Socialism (French Version) for the average man. MESSAGE: PUNISH THE WICKED – ONLY THE WICKED LOSE 5 – Commercial, Financial, Economic, Political, Educational dishonesty, parasitism, predation, and destruction of not only our people but all people. DE-EMPHASIS 6 – De-Emphasize Methodology …. (a) Methodology is for Jurists, Prosecutors, Inquisitors, social scientists, professors, and teachers. …. (b) The law is simple in the list of rights and applications. …. (c) The law is only ‘complex’ in its language and definitions. …. (d) There is only one law: Reciprocity (Trade). And only one good: exchanges that produce reciprocal preferences.

  • Podcast: Pivot To Good Government

    Pivot To Good Government

    OVERVIEWEMPHASIS 1 – Emphasize policy (benefits) 2 – Emphasize Light Secession (decentralization of norms) 2 – Emphasize constitution (processes and procedures) 3 – Emphasize means of demand (actions to produce implementation.) MESSAGE: SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE -EVERYONE WINS 4 – Maintain “Something for Everyone, but no Monopoly” …. (a) Rights of exit, secession, voluntary disassociation for all. …. (b) State religion for christians (god/jesus), pagans(hero gods), heathens (kin) …. (c) Rule of law, devolution, secession for the libertarians …. (d) Separatism for the nationalists …. (e) Strong Man “Lite” for the fascists. …. (f) National Socialism (French Version) for the average man. MESSAGE: PUNISH THE WICKED – ONLY THE WICKED LOSE 5 – Commercial, Financial, Economic, Political, Educational dishonesty, parasitism, predation, and destruction of not only our people but all people. DE-EMPHASIS 6 – De-Emphasize Methodology …. (a) Methodology is for Jurists, Prosecutors, Inquisitors, social scientists, professors, and teachers. …. (b) The law is simple in the list of rights and applications. …. (c) The law is only ‘complex’ in its language and definitions. …. (d) There is only one law: Reciprocity (Trade). And only one good: exchanges that produce reciprocal preferences.

  • On Truth (Complete)(Core)

    ON TRUTH (Complete)(core)TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY”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

    WHERE DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY:

    1. In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).

    2. In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

    Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). 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.

    GIVEN THE HUMAN FACULTIES:

    1. Sense(stimuli)
      … … Perception (composition)
      … … … Association
    2. Logic Facility (constant relations)
      … … Imagination Facility (prediction)
      … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation)
    3. Grammar facility (statements)
      … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’)
      … … Vocabulary
      … … … Sounds
      … … … Signs (acts, actions)
      … … … Marks (records)
      … … … … accidental
      … … … … intentional
      … … … … … Mark
      … … … … … Symbol
      … … … … … … Glyph
      … … … … … Pictogram
      … … … … … Picture
      … … … … … Picture Series
      … … … … … Animation
    4. Communication Facility (“Language”)
      … Truths
      … … .Formal Science
      … … … Mathematics
      … … … Logics (deflationary Grammars)
      … … …  Algorithms
      … … Physical Sciences
      … … … Physics
      … … … Chemistry
      … … … Biology
      … … … Sentience (Consciousness)
      … …
      … … Rhetorics (argumentative, persuasive Grammars)
      … Descriptions
      … … Testimony
      … Ordinary Language
      … Narrations (inflationary Grammars)
      … … Narrative (description)
      … … … Storytelling (loading, framing)
      … Deceits
      … … … Fictionalism
      … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic
      … … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and
      … … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult
      … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading)
      … … … … Propaganda
      … … … Misdirection (Deceit)
      … … … Fraud (for gain)
      … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain)

    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. Existential >
      … 2. Realism >
      … 3. Naturalism >
    2. Possible >
      … 5. Operational – Demonstrable >
      … 6. Empirical – Externally Correspondent >
      … 7. Logical – Categorically Consistent
    3. Rational >
      … 9. Rational Choice – Demonstrated Preference >
      … … 10. Incentives – Demonstrated Interest >
      … … … 11. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time
      … … … 12. Mates, Offspring, Kin
      … … … 13. Status, Reputation, Kith
      … … … 14. Several Interests (in many forms)
      … … … 15. Common Interests (in many forms)
      … 16. Reciprocal >
      … … 17. Productive
      … … 18. Fully Informed
      … … 19. Voluntary Transfer >
      … … 20. Free of Negative Externality >
    4. Survivable >
      … 22. Power Distribution of Law >
      … 23. Pareto Distribution of Assets >
      … 24. Nash Distribution of Rewards >
    5. Complete >
      … 26. Limits, Completeness, Full Accounting,
      … 27. Consistency, Coherence, Parsimony
    6. Competitive – in the market for theories
      … 29. Sufficient – Satisfies the Demand For Infallibility
      … 30. Parsimony – In competition with other testimonies
    7. Warrantable >
      … 32. (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
      … 33. (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
      … 34. (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
      … (c) Overloading, Propaganda and Social Construction
      … (d) Fictionalisms of
      … … i) Idealism -> Pseudorationalism, and
      … … ii) Magic -> Pseudoscience, and
      … … iii) Occult -> Supernaturalism;
      … (e) Sophistry
      … (f) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF: Any transfer of demonstrated interests that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … (d) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests … (e) free of externality of the same criteria … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability WHERE DEMONSTRATED INTEREST INCLUDES: 1. Existential (or Natural) Interests: Definition:

    Existential (or Natural) Interest: Interests that inherent in physical existence. Where;

    1. Self:  Life, Body, Genes, Memories, Mind, Attention Time, and Action

    2. Stimulation, Experience

    1. Cooperative Interests Include

    3. Status and Class (reputation, honor) Self-Image, Status, Reputation Social, Sexual, Economic, Political, and Military Market Value

    4. Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Interests Mates (access to sex/reproduction), and Marriage Children (genetic reproduction) Consanguineous Relations (family, kin, clan, tribal and national relations)

    5. Sustainable Patterns of Association, Cooperation, Insurance, Reproduction,  Production, Distribution and Trade Friends, Acquaintances, Neighbors, Cooperative Relations, Commercial Relations, Political Relations, and Military Relations.

    1. Obtained Interests include:

    Definition:

    Obtained Interest: Interests that are obtained by bearing a cost of opportunity, time, effort, resources, to obtain that interest without imposing upon the previously born costs of others. Where; Obtained Interests Include:

    6. Several (Personal) Interests Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.” Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    7. Shareholder (Fractional) Interests Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    8. Title Interests (Weights and Measures) Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    9. Artificial Interests (Privileges) Letters of Marque, Patents, Copyrights, Grants of License.

    10. Common Interests, or “Commons” (Community Property) Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    (i) Informational commons: knowledge. Information.

    (ii) Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: habits, manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price.  The costs are subjective and consist of forgone opportunities.

    (iii) Formal (Physical) Commons: the territory, it’s waterways, parks, buildings, improvements and infrastructure.

    (iv) Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion, Education, Banking, Treasury, Government, Laws, Courts.

    (v) Monuments (art and artifacts). Monuments claim territory, demonstrate wealth, and provide one of the longest most invariable normative and economic returns that any culture can construct as a demonstration of conspicuous production (wealth), and as such, conspicuous excellence. (hence why competing monuments represent an invasion. Temples, Churches, Museums, Sculptures being the most obvious examples of cultural claim or conquest. )

    (vi) Common Opportunity Interests When people come together in proximity, and suppress impositions of costs upon the interests of others through the incremental evolution of the law of reciprocity, they decrease the time and effort required to produce voluntary association, cooperation and exchange. As such polities decrease opportunity costs, and generate opportunities. These opportunities are un-homsesteaded (opportunities) until invested in by individuals either by expenditure of time effort and resources, or by forgoing opportunities for consumption. As such the proximity of people and the institution of reciprocity under law produce a commons of opportunities that we seize (homestead) by competition. As such no one may claim interest in an opportunity without conducting and exchange by which to seize it.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), … (h) conquest (war). (End)

  • On Truth (Complete)(Core)

    ON TRUTH (Complete)(core)TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY”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

    WHERE DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY:

    1. In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).

    2. In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

    Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). 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.

    GIVEN THE HUMAN FACULTIES:

    1. Sense(stimuli)
      … … Perception (composition)
      … … … Association
    2. Logic Facility (constant relations)
      … … Imagination Facility (prediction)
      … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation)
    3. Grammar facility (statements)
      … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’)
      … … Vocabulary
      … … … Sounds
      … … … Signs (acts, actions)
      … … … Marks (records)
      … … … … accidental
      … … … … intentional
      … … … … … Mark
      … … … … … Symbol
      … … … … … … Glyph
      … … … … … Pictogram
      … … … … … Picture
      … … … … … Picture Series
      … … … … … Animation
    4. Communication Facility (“Language”)
      … Truths
      … … .Formal Science
      … … … Mathematics
      … … … Logics (deflationary Grammars)
      … … …  Algorithms
      … … Physical Sciences
      … … … Physics
      … … … Chemistry
      … … … Biology
      … … … Sentience (Consciousness)
      … …
      … … Rhetorics (argumentative, persuasive Grammars)
      … Descriptions
      … … Testimony
      … Ordinary Language
      … Narrations (inflationary Grammars)
      … … Narrative (description)
      … … … Storytelling (loading, framing)
      … Deceits
      … … … Fictionalism
      … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic
      … … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and
      … … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult
      … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading)
      … … … … Propaganda
      … … … Misdirection (Deceit)
      … … … Fraud (for gain)
      … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain)

    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. Existential >
      … 2. Realism >
      … 3. Naturalism >
    2. Possible >
      … 5. Operational – Demonstrable >
      … 6. Empirical – Externally Correspondent >
      … 7. Logical – Categorically Consistent
    3. Rational >
      … 9. Rational Choice – Demonstrated Preference >
      … … 10. Incentives – Demonstrated Interest >
      … … … 11. Body, Mind, Memory, Effort, Time
      … … … 12. Mates, Offspring, Kin
      … … … 13. Status, Reputation, Kith
      … … … 14. Several Interests (in many forms)
      … … … 15. Common Interests (in many forms)
      … 16. Reciprocal >
      … … 17. Productive
      … … 18. Fully Informed
      … … 19. Voluntary Transfer >
      … … 20. Free of Negative Externality >
    4. Survivable >
      … 22. Power Distribution of Law >
      … 23. Pareto Distribution of Assets >
      … 24. Nash Distribution of Rewards >
    5. Complete >
      … 26. Limits, Completeness, Full Accounting,
      … 27. Consistency, Coherence, Parsimony
    6. Competitive – in the market for theories
      … 29. Sufficient – Satisfies the Demand For Infallibility
      … 30. Parsimony – In competition with other testimonies
    7. Warrantable >
      … 32. (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
      … 33. (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
      … 34. (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
      … (c) Overloading, Propaganda and Social Construction
      … (d) Fictionalisms of
      … … i) Idealism -> Pseudorationalism, and
      … … ii) Magic -> Pseudoscience, and
      … … iii) Occult -> Supernaturalism;
      … (e) Sophistry
      … (f) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF: Any transfer of demonstrated interests that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … (d) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests … (e) free of externality of the same criteria … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability WHERE DEMONSTRATED INTEREST INCLUDES: 1. Existential (or Natural) Interests: Definition:

    Existential (or Natural) Interest: Interests that inherent in physical existence. Where;

    1. Self:  Life, Body, Genes, Memories, Mind, Attention Time, and Action

    2. Stimulation, Experience

    1. Cooperative Interests Include

    3. Status and Class (reputation, honor) Self-Image, Status, Reputation Social, Sexual, Economic, Political, and Military Market Value

    4. Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Interests Mates (access to sex/reproduction), and Marriage Children (genetic reproduction) Consanguineous Relations (family, kin, clan, tribal and national relations)

    5. Sustainable Patterns of Association, Cooperation, Insurance, Reproduction,  Production, Distribution and Trade Friends, Acquaintances, Neighbors, Cooperative Relations, Commercial Relations, Political Relations, and Military Relations.

    1. Obtained Interests include:

    Definition:

    Obtained Interest: Interests that are obtained by bearing a cost of opportunity, time, effort, resources, to obtain that interest without imposing upon the previously born costs of others. Where; Obtained Interests Include:

    6. Several (Personal) Interests Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.” Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    7. Shareholder (Fractional) Interests Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    8. Title Interests (Weights and Measures) Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    9. Artificial Interests (Privileges) Letters of Marque, Patents, Copyrights, Grants of License.

    10. Common Interests, or “Commons” (Community Property) Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    (i) Informational commons: knowledge. Information.

    (ii) Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: habits, manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price.  The costs are subjective and consist of forgone opportunities.

    (iii) Formal (Physical) Commons: the territory, it’s waterways, parks, buildings, improvements and infrastructure.

    (iv) Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion, Education, Banking, Treasury, Government, Laws, Courts.

    (v) Monuments (art and artifacts). Monuments claim territory, demonstrate wealth, and provide one of the longest most invariable normative and economic returns that any culture can construct as a demonstration of conspicuous production (wealth), and as such, conspicuous excellence. (hence why competing monuments represent an invasion. Temples, Churches, Museums, Sculptures being the most obvious examples of cultural claim or conquest. )

    (vi) Common Opportunity Interests When people come together in proximity, and suppress impositions of costs upon the interests of others through the incremental evolution of the law of reciprocity, they decrease the time and effort required to produce voluntary association, cooperation and exchange. As such polities decrease opportunity costs, and generate opportunities. These opportunities are un-homsesteaded (opportunities) until invested in by individuals either by expenditure of time effort and resources, or by forgoing opportunities for consumption. As such the proximity of people and the institution of reciprocity under law produce a commons of opportunities that we seize (homestead) by competition. As such no one may claim interest in an opportunity without conducting and exchange by which to seize it.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), … (h) conquest (war). (End)

  • Definition: GSRM (or GSRRM, RRGSM etc.)

    “WHAT DOES GSRM STAND FOR?” (core) —“You mention GSRM all the time, what does it stand for?”– [T]he Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument by use of undermining, poisoning the well, reputation destruction by use of (G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, (P)sychologizing,(U)ndermining, (R)eputation destruction. and solving for (F)ace or consent – instead of Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” using rejection or approval vs male “reals” of truth of falsehood.

    The Female Technique of Social Superpredation by Gossiping Shaming Ridiculing Rallying and Moralizing

    • Undermining (blaming) by GSRRM: Disapproving > Denying, Shaming > Gossiping, Outraging > Rallying, Psychologizing > Moralizing, Dominating > Oppressing, Reputation-Destruction > Propagandizing (Limiting consumption)

    The Technique of “GSRRM” includes: … (L)ying by Plausible Deniability By: … (E)vading the Truth By: … (E)quating Truth to (F)ace, (A)pproval, or (C)onsent By: … (D)isapproving … … (D)enying … … … (S)ilence And By Escalating To: … (S)haming, … … (M)oralizing, … … … (P)sychologizing, … … … … (R)idiculing … … … … … (O)utraging, And By Escalating To: … (R)allying … … (G)ossiping … … … (U)ndermining, … … … … (P)ropagandizing And By Escalating To: … (S)houting Down … … (S)ilencing … … … (C)ancelling  … … … … (D)eplatforming (interference in communication and colaboration) And By Escalating to: … (R)eputation destruction (interference in reputation) … … (D)oxxing (interference in safety and anonymity) … … … (J)ob Doxxing (interference in employement) … … … … (B)usiness Doxxing (interference in the conduct of a business) And By Escalating to: … (C)ourt Abuse (using cost of litigation to silence, obtain false confession, or to harm) … … (J)udicial Abuse (using select cases to exploit vunlerabilities in the law) … … … (C)onstitutional Abuse (using advocacy of incrementally harmful legislation to exploit vulnerabilities in the construction of the constitution, under cover of moral pretense)

    In western history under our ancient laws, men were prohibited from reputation destruction by direct violence between men under the law of the Duel. 

    In western history Female Conflict (social violence by GSRRM) was largely illegal or punishable under laws against “scolds” –women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace.

    During the democratic and Marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony).

    Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM.

    GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience. [M]en generally make an argument and let the argument do its work. We use shaming if necessary in response to GSRM. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on GSRM as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it. GSRRM (LEFTIST, POSTMODERN, FEMININE) SPEECH Leftist speech is not protected speech. It is always either: Fraud – promising benefits that will never be delivered at costs that will never be disclosed. Slander(oral) and Libel(written) Defamation – malicious lies designed to slur, marginalize, and dehumanize rivals or critics. Obscenity – Transgression of taboos for the purpose of subversion, demoralization, and/or parasitic profit. Blasphemy – Attacking the sacred for the purpose of subversion, undermining, the destruction of intergenerational wisdom, and the erosion of necessary and helpful moral rules. False Alarm : relentlessly fear-mongering and sensationalizing imaginary threats as a means of obscuring/justifying real ones. Abrahamism : False Promise Pilpul (Sophism) – Overloading. Misdirecting. Obscuring. Disputation by sheer volume and variety of fallacy to overwhelm resistance to false and pernicious conclusions.  Can include sophism, pseudoscience, fiction, fictionalisms, or supernaturalists. Critique (Undermining) – Criticism of a straw man to undermine without proposing an alternative or superior solution open to equal analysis and criticism. Includes loading, framing, obscuring, suggesting, fictionalizing, denying, deceiving and outright lying. Heaping of Undue Praise – Advancing a hero in order to create an appeal to authority rather than advancing an argument to test whether it survives application to the context. Propaganda – narrative manufacturer by sheer repetition to fill the “marketplace of ideas” with bullshit congenial to the gatekeepers who control the broadcast channels and media. Psychoanalysis (Psychologising) – pseudo-scientifically pathologizing legitimate disagreement as a means of obtaining and exercising social control and marginalizing and silencing dissenting voices and views. Feminine Coercion – Rallying, shaming, gossip, disapproval, moralizing, mockery, ridicule, nagging, scolding, and character assassination to raise the emotional and social cost of disagreement and dissent without addressing their causes. Or some combination of these and other categories of parasitic, deceptive, and destructive speech.   HISTORY [I]n western history GSRM was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace. During the democratic and marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM. GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience. This is why the abrahamic (jewish in particular, or semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony. Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost. Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth. Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth. Yet it is truth over face that is the reason for the ‘western miracle’ – why the rest is so different from the rest. Hence why christians are the vulnerability of western civilization: their religion was developed to obtain the attention of women, and to appeal to GSRM. The religion is stated and argued with false promise(‘salvation’), baiting into hazard (cultural vulnerability to conquest), using pilpul (excuse making) and critique (straw manning), and the fictionalism of supernaturalism. Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and islam to destroy. The middle east uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and the west use the male reproductive strategy, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end. The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Definition: GSRM (or GSRRM, RRGSM etc.)

    “WHAT DOES GSRM STAND FOR?” (core) —“You mention GSRM all the time, what does it stand for?”– [T]he Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument by use of undermining, poisoning the well, reputation destruction by use of (G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, (P)sychologizing,(U)ndermining, (R)eputation destruction. and solving for (F)ace or consent – instead of Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” using rejection or approval vs male “reals” of truth of falsehood.

    The Female Technique of Social Superpredation by Gossiping Shaming Ridiculing Rallying and Moralizing

    • Undermining (blaming) by GSRRM: Disapproving > Denying, Shaming > Gossiping, Outraging > Rallying, Psychologizing > Moralizing, Dominating > Oppressing, Reputation-Destruction > Propagandizing (Limiting consumption)

    The Technique of “GSRRM” includes: … (L)ying by Plausible Deniability By: … (E)vading the Truth By: … (E)quating Truth to (F)ace, (A)pproval, or (C)onsent By: … (D)isapproving … … (D)enying … … … (S)ilence And By Escalating To: … (S)haming, … … (M)oralizing, … … … (P)sychologizing, … … … … (R)idiculing … … … … … (O)utraging, And By Escalating To: … (R)allying … … (G)ossiping … … … (U)ndermining, … … … … (P)ropagandizing And By Escalating To: … (S)houting Down … … (S)ilencing … … … (C)ancelling  … … … … (D)eplatforming (interference in communication and colaboration) And By Escalating to: … (R)eputation destruction (interference in reputation) … … (D)oxxing (interference in safety and anonymity) … … … (J)ob Doxxing (interference in employement) … … … … (B)usiness Doxxing (interference in the conduct of a business) And By Escalating to: … (C)ourt Abuse (using cost of litigation to silence, obtain false confession, or to harm) … … (J)udicial Abuse (using select cases to exploit vunlerabilities in the law) … … … (C)onstitutional Abuse (using advocacy of incrementally harmful legislation to exploit vulnerabilities in the construction of the constitution, under cover of moral pretense)

    In western history under our ancient laws, men were prohibited from reputation destruction by direct violence between men under the law of the Duel. 

    In western history Female Conflict (social violence by GSRRM) was largely illegal or punishable under laws against “scolds” –women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace.

    During the democratic and Marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony).

    Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM.

    GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience. [M]en generally make an argument and let the argument do its work. We use shaming if necessary in response to GSRM. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on GSRM as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it. GSRRM (LEFTIST, POSTMODERN, FEMININE) SPEECH Leftist speech is not protected speech. It is always either: Fraud – promising benefits that will never be delivered at costs that will never be disclosed. Slander(oral) and Libel(written) Defamation – malicious lies designed to slur, marginalize, and dehumanize rivals or critics. Obscenity – Transgression of taboos for the purpose of subversion, demoralization, and/or parasitic profit. Blasphemy – Attacking the sacred for the purpose of subversion, undermining, the destruction of intergenerational wisdom, and the erosion of necessary and helpful moral rules. False Alarm : relentlessly fear-mongering and sensationalizing imaginary threats as a means of obscuring/justifying real ones. Abrahamism : False Promise Pilpul (Sophism) – Overloading. Misdirecting. Obscuring. Disputation by sheer volume and variety of fallacy to overwhelm resistance to false and pernicious conclusions.  Can include sophism, pseudoscience, fiction, fictionalisms, or supernaturalists. Critique (Undermining) – Criticism of a straw man to undermine without proposing an alternative or superior solution open to equal analysis and criticism. Includes loading, framing, obscuring, suggesting, fictionalizing, denying, deceiving and outright lying. Heaping of Undue Praise – Advancing a hero in order to create an appeal to authority rather than advancing an argument to test whether it survives application to the context. Propaganda – narrative manufacturer by sheer repetition to fill the “marketplace of ideas” with bullshit congenial to the gatekeepers who control the broadcast channels and media. Psychoanalysis (Psychologising) – pseudo-scientifically pathologizing legitimate disagreement as a means of obtaining and exercising social control and marginalizing and silencing dissenting voices and views. Feminine Coercion – Rallying, shaming, gossip, disapproval, moralizing, mockery, ridicule, nagging, scolding, and character assassination to raise the emotional and social cost of disagreement and dissent without addressing their causes. Or some combination of these and other categories of parasitic, deceptive, and destructive speech.   HISTORY [I]n western history GSRM was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace. During the democratic and marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM. GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience. This is why the abrahamic (jewish in particular, or semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony. Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost. Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth. Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth. Yet it is truth over face that is the reason for the ‘western miracle’ – why the rest is so different from the rest. Hence why christians are the vulnerability of western civilization: their religion was developed to obtain the attention of women, and to appeal to GSRM. The religion is stated and argued with false promise(‘salvation’), baiting into hazard (cultural vulnerability to conquest), using pilpul (excuse making) and critique (straw manning), and the fictionalism of supernaturalism. Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and islam to destroy. The middle east uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and the west use the male reproductive strategy, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end. The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute