—“They will rally against us with the criticism of ‘dehumanization’ when we can consistently return the criticism with ‘romanticism and pseudoscience’: in other words – you’re just lazy. Confusing conviction with convenience. We are confused. We don’t conflate. We’re men of the west. They are the enemy because they are predatory parasitic animals, and animals need us to domesticate them to make the world safe for Humans.”—Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:31:00 UTC
—“Philosophy is easy when you don’t have to tell the truth.”—Steve Lacasse
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 15:57:00 UTC
RORTY is just a skeptic. He has no philosophy. He gives us none. His work is simply excuse making (not even justification) of power seeking of the left.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 05:14:00 UTC
ARGUMENT TODAY IS NOT VICTORIAN
In Argument and Debate, there is a very great difference between victorian era and today: critical prosecution against falsehood and deceit is very different from cooperative exploration with the assumption of honesty.
I know what I am doing and I know it is unpleasant, but it is precisely this assumption of honesty and integrity that has led to the failure to resist the pseudosciences that have created the current escalating conflict. So I view it just as immoral to leave undefended the intellectual commons as I do to leave physical danger un-answered within it.
Our civilization has not been destroyed in both the ancient era and the present by our persistent wars that we wrongly rail against. But by the failure of philosophers in the early twentieth century to expand rule of law, and limit etiquette, to the expansion of both the scale of our cooperation under worldwide industrialism, and the expansion of the power of the voice of deceit under propaganda in media.
We ceased competing largely militarily and moved to competing economically – and without our knowledge we now compete informationally. And our civilization could not survive authoritarian pseudoscience any more than it survived the first conquest by authoritarian mysticism.
This is not recreation for me. It’s not personal fulfillment. It’s research into the methods by which we expand our rule of law, to defend the informational commons that has been the source of our second defeat.
-Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 08:35:00 UTC
NEW SLANG omfg
“OVEN MIDDLE CLASS”
Middle-class liberals whose primary method of signaling is advocating for policies that ruin the areas they don’t live in and the lives of people they don’t socialize with. Not-In-My-Back-Yard multiculturalists.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 15:05:00 UTC
As far as I know male’s exaggerated compliment, trash talking, man-splaining and female’s unworthy compliment, gossiping and fem-splaining are universal to man and woman and always have been.
Women have always given compliments they don’t mean, and men have always given insults that they don’t mean. Throughout history.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 14:57:00 UTC
Women lie to each other to bond. Men trash talk.
Both are demonstrations of loyalty.
All communication consists of signaling, negotiation, and deception. With scarce facts serving as only minor currency.
Truth and science are alien to man.
That is why we must work so hard at them.
We evolved to negotiate not to testify.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 14:03:00 UTC
(in progress) (note to self)
TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS
-The Six Warranties of Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
-The inclusion of Moral Due Diligence: Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities that are productive, fully informed, warrantied and voluntary.
-The inclusion of Full Accounting of Changes in Property In Toto(demonstrated property) in the consideration of Moral Due Diligence.
-The Defense of the Informational Commons against the imposition of costs by use of universal standing in matters of the informational commons.
Everything else is education
THE REASON FOR WESTERN EXCEPTIONALISM: SOVEREIGNTY, TRUTH, AND MARKETS PRODUCE VELOCITY.
1) Individual Sovereignty. (Not liberty from immoral rule, not freedom from immoral command, not positive freedom from nature’s constraints – but sovereignty. )
2) Testimonial (performative) Truth: The Development of (unforgiving) Martial Epistemology (of the brotherhood of warriors) into a universal commons, and from that the discovery of objective Truth, and Debate, Reason, Greek ‘science’, Empirical Science, and now Testimonial Truth (‘complete science’).
3) Cooperation at scale under sovereignty can only be achieved by the use of voluntary markets, and reciprocal insurance: a market for consumption(labor, craft, organization, decision making), a market for production(goods, services, information), a market for reproduction(marriage and family), a market for commons (territory, resources, built capital, information, norms, traditions, ‘laws’, and institutions.), a market for dispute resolution (natural, empirical, common, judge-discovered, law, decided by jury), a market for polities (different group competitive strategies accessible through voluntary association and disassociation).
4) Just as only truth survives when we eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, prosperity survives when we first, collect in groups so that we reduce the opportunity cost of cooperation, and second when we eliminate the frictions of unpredictability in our attempts at cooperation increasing the velocity of cooperation and extending our plans and production cycles further into the future, where less change is required in the present to cause greater change in the increasingly distant future.
5) A small, relatively poor group of people can use force of arms to create Soveriegn Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism), as an industry and as a profession – and it is the most profitable profession yet invented by man.
6) By incrementally suppressing all unsovereign acts using natural, judge discovered, common law, as those unsovereign acts are discovered (the imposition of costs), then humans are increasingly forced out of parasitism and into production, with transfer within kin groups the limit of that legal reach. Kin insure kin.
7) The unproductive are prohibited from reproduction. The problematic are hung. The excesses are eliminated by starvation, disease, and war. Thus incrementally reducing the costly lower classes that lack both ability and will to engage in productive labors.
8) The enlightenment seizure of power by the middle class from the aristocracy using the equalizing power of guns, in the hands of the numerous and common man, destroyed (a) the multi-house government that served as a market for commons between the classes. (b) The ‘truth’ of the four or more classes as cooperating not competing. (c)
TRUTH
The problem of the second Great Deceit.
Solving it through demand truth in public speech, prosecuting as fraud just as we prosecute all other frauds.
The problem is creating legal due diligence criteria.
Solving it through tests of due diligence in all possible dimensions
Testimonialism provides a list of those due diligences.
We already know most of those due diligences.
But we add Morality and Full Accounting to the list.
Morality requires productive, informed, warrantied voluntary transfers limited to externalities of the same criteria.
Full Accounting requires that we enumerate the changes in state to all forms of capital (property in toto).
LAW
When we discover new law we write it using strict construction from the first principle of morality (above).
We start with the intention of the newly discovered law (scope), and we continue with definitions(declarations), and processes(functions.)
Law must be then constructed, operationally, and it must be fully calculable – essentially a programming language of law that is just as complete as are computable formulae.
This creates a non-interpretable, but expandable, fully testable, legal system, open to continuous improvement and correction.
To ensure the enforcement of this system, and to ensure constant correction of it, as it applies to the informational commons, this commons must be open to defense under universal standing.
The same criteria applies to all contracts, including those involuntary contracts we call legislation and regulation.
Meaning that any and all citizens can compete with legislators and regulators, and the judiciary to force truthful and moral operation of that industry that we call government, that produces that product and services we call ‘commons’. Or stated in the legal vernacular: the people must always possess juridical defense against law, legislation, regulation, and contract -without exception.
MARKET FOR COMMONS
The other significant advice that I’ve given consists in the methods of restoring the use of government as a market for commons between the classes by various means, all of which eliminate the monopoly production of commons under that worst of all possible tyrannies: democracy.
ALL THE REST IS EXPLANATION
Everything else I have written is to EDUCATE by explanation the causes of the principle of universal sovereignty and the market society that is the only solution to persistence of sovereignty, and why the west in both the modern and ancient worlds, was able to innovate so much faster than the rest, despite being a small, poor population on the edge of the bronze age.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND
But one does not need (as I do) to understand the entirety of why this solution is sufficient to restore the west to its strategy of sovereignty and by consequence markets for consumption, production, reproduction(family), commons(govt), population(countries), and leadership (monarchies). Nor does one need (as I do) to understand the entire history of why this is all so. One needs only understand that the solution is to evolve our law to match the increases in the industrialization of information distribution, so that any informational product of any kind enters the market for information regulated just as we regulate any other product or service: that it must be truthful.
AND IT ISNT COMPLICATED
Now, I do not have the faintest idea why any of that is hard to grasp.
Nor do I understand why testimonialism is hard to grasp:
1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency. I don’t see why we aren’t great at this already. (sensibility)
2 – Logic: Internal Consistency – although when I say this I mean that logical consistency does not refer to ‘meaning’ but to existentially possible statements. There is nothing new here that isn’t largely in eprime and performative truth. (reason)
3 – Empirical: External Consistency (Correspondence). I don’t have to teach the world about empiricism for goodness sakes. (reality)
4 – Operational: Existential Consistency. This takes a bit of practice but again, it is easily solved by writing in eprime in first person voice, as a sequence of operations and observations. This is already done in the physical sciences. (human action)
5 – Moral: Voluntary Consistency. All transfers consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. The only novelty here is in full-accounting of property in toto. (cooperation)
6 – Scope: Scope consistency. Consisting of (a) limits, (b) parsimony, and (c) full accounting. Where the only novelty here is a full accounting of property in toto. (scope)
SURVIVAL VS UNDERSTANDING SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE
What is counter-intuitive, that most people seem to have trouble grasping, is the difference between the false comforting certainty of justificationism, and the true but uncomfortable uncertainty of survival from criticism. We are taught to prove things. to get the right answer. But the universe does not work like that. Anything that is not false might be true. Law works by the same means: if there are criteria by which a thing is illegal (false) than that which survives those criteria is legal (true).
TESTIMONIALISM MERELY INCREMENTALLY EXTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF PROVIDING A WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, AND DECEIT
So testimonialism extends the scientific method into social science, law, and politics. As long as you have done your due diligence as a producer of a good, a service, or information, then you have broken no natural law. If you produce a good, a service, or information, and have not done due diligence, and done no harm, then you have broken no natural law. But if you produce a good, a service, or information and someone claims harm, then you are liable for damages. And the problem you face, is that damages done by disinformation are extraordinarily hard to repair, compared to those done by goods and much harder to repair than those done by services.
Testimonialism is reducible to the requirement that we test all dimensions that humans can possibly sense, perceive, and act against.
WE ARE, OURSELVES, AN INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT
Why does that matter? Because with any testimony we are trying to create a description that through a process of reconstruction, the audience envisions that which you claim to have envisioned. So our bodies, senses, minds function as units of measure. Therefore reducing the world to descriptions that are subjectively testable by a jury is a test of your descriptions. We humans are the unit of measure because we are marginally indifferent – at least in groups – in what we can sense, perceive, understand, and sympathize with.
Imagine you are looking at a scene, and describing it. And you are talking to someone who sees 100 scenes (or an infinite number for that matter), and he is trying to identify which one you’re describing, but you can’t hear him. He can only hear you.
If he can correctly choose the one you’re describing your testimony is ‘truthful’.
THE NECESSARY PART OF MY WORK IS ‘DONE’
So I don’t believe that I have more work to do in explaining the central insights provided by my work. I may have much more EDUCATION to do. And I can create more educational content. But the central thesis of sovereignty > markets > truth > informational commons > strict construction > universal standing > market government with houses for each of the classes does not seem to be very hard to understand.
YOU NEED TO USE YOUR VIOLENCE
If you want to know the answer – I just gave it to you. You just need to withdraw from the state the deposit of your violence, and use that violence in every way possible to disrupt economy and infrastructure and rule until your demand for truth is met.
Or that’s the amount of energy I have to put into this tonight. You don’t need to understand more than that in order to understand how to restore western civilization from the second great utopian deceit: cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno and the many others of their ilk.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:44:00 UTC
Deceiving, negotiating, justifying, testifying, and criticizing are different activities. Right?
When we engage in negotiating with enemies, negotiating with customers, with family, with judge and jury, with fellow scientists are we using the same truth criteria?
We live lives of negotiation not argument, persuasion not truth, excuse-making not survival from criticism.
But in the end what does argumentative epistemology tell us about property?
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-09 21:22:00 UTC
—The proof is in the Left’s success.— Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy. If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded? —Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.— Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation. Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident. So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends. —And they are a very eugenic group.— If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science). –libertarianism is a straw dog — Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: “If lying works we should use it” AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING “Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default” we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now. TRUTH IS ENOUGH So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well. That’s my response. 😉