Theme: Operationalism

  • It would be interesting to debate some of the terms Stephen uses. As far as I kn

    It would be interesting to debate some of the terms Stephen uses.

    As far as I know, only natural numbers exist. Only one mathematics exists. Many operational logics exist – limited only by the axiomatic limits we place upon them by Types (constant relations), Operations (transformations), and Grammar (structure of operations). Stephen is almost always talking of operational logics of arbitrary categories, not mathematics of correspondent and constant relations.

    This difference is one of the two principle reasons why people are awed by mathematics – which is quite simple. The first is the apparent mystery of the limits of our prediction from constant relations. The second, illustrated above, is the misrepresentation of the real, correspondent, constant relations of mathematics, and the ideal, arbitrary, constant relations, of operational logic.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 14:35:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION (working with deflationary truth now expressly, as the result of opera

    EVOLUTION

    (working with deflationary truth now expressly, as the result of operationalism and criticism/falsification)

    Free association / imaginable

    …. Reason / Reasonableness (conceivable)

    …. …. Deducible / Possibility (proof)

    …. …. …. Rational Philosophy / Rational Truth (Logic.)

    …. …. …. …. Analytic Philosophy / Analytic Truth (Emp.)

    …. …. …. …. …. Deflationary Philosophy / Deflationary Truth (Op.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-21 17:10:00 UTC

  • Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language

    NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle
  • Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language

    NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle
  • The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
  • The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
  • WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’ In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’

    In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a very precise definition of ‘truthful knowledge’ that isn’t open to interpretation. We don’t use the word ‘true’ knowledge, and we don’t even use the word ‘true’ very often, except to say ‘that’s not true, or that can’t be true”, and tend use the world ‘truthful’ or ‘truth candidate’ instead.

    I suppose for greater clarity for newcomers would could say that by “Truthful Knowledge” we are referring to the most parsimonious and consistently correspondent statement possible, that is as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, as the scope of human language and human knowledge currently tolerates.

    And I could criticize myself for using that Truthful Knowledge which to the inexperienced, immediately invokes via-positiva justificationism, when I mean via negativa ‘a surviving truth candidate’.

    So when we say we are making a Truthful Statement, it is one that has SURVIVED the test of Testimonial Epistemology:

    The Operational Sequence of Universal, Testimonial, Epistemology:

    experience ->

    … free association ->

    … … idea ->

    … … … ‘wayfinding’ ->

    … … … … hypothesis ->

    … … … … … critical testing (falsification) ->

    … … … … … … theory ->

    … … … … … … … publication (market testing) ->

    … … … … … … … … Law ->

    … … … … … … … … … metaphysical assumption(acculturation).

    In that phase of Critical Testing we attempt to construct an operational description of a sequence of subjectively testable operations, (which is a very densely loaded set of terms), that adhere to a very strict grammar.

    This form of ‘strict construction’ exposes (quite readily) whether we know what we are talking about or not. And shows us where we need to add clarity before we can make a truthful statement.

    Then we use a checklist to ensure that we can WARRANTY to others that we have done due diligence, in ensuring that we do not engage in the many problems of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, and deceit.

    This list includes a set of consistency checks. They are:

    – Categorical Consistency: identity consistency

    – Logical Consistency: internal consistency

    – Empirical Consistency: external correspondence

    – Existential consistency: operational language and subjective testability

    – Moral consistency: Reciprocity (which we have a very strict definition of as well: consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externalities)

    – Scope Consistency: (this one is hard) but it means have we

    …. (a) fully accounted for call costs?

    …. (b) defined the limits – at what points does this statement no longer apply?

    …. (c) tested the parsimony – (this one is very hard) have we overstated our case, and can this be stated more precisely?

    Because humans ourselves serve as a STANDARD OF MEASURE in relation to other humans due to limited differences in subjective testability; and because of the difficulty in making a series of operational statements, while at the same time surviving the checklist of six dimensions of actionable reality, it is almost impossible to be held accountable by others for speaking a falsehood.

    This is what we mean by ‘Truthful Speech’. Your warranty that you have done due diligence that your speech will do no harm.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Aesthetics of Agency

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 17:57:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? is

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM”

    What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”?

    ism

    ˈizəm/

    noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.”

    So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species.

    When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes.

    The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….”

    To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:53:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important)

    NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM

    (propertarianism core)(important)

    Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already.

    For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.

    EXPLANATION

    Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.

    Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.

    So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.

    THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false)”

    (Reminds me of Yoda-speak, or Latin… lol)

    In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.

    FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW

    If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.

    {terms and definitions }

    -We … (who)

    -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )

    -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)

    -We propose …. (series of actions to change state)

    and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)

    -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)

    and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),

    -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).

    -Signed

    …. -Juried

    …. …. -Adjudicated.

    …. …. …. -Recorded.

    This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution.

    Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions.

    We must correct:

    The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty.

    All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and tehir ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission.

    WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH

    By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years.

    We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior.

    This is terribly easy todo. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity.

    And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit.

    APOLOGIES

    I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 13:27:00 UTC

  • Wisdom differs from truth in that wisdom achieves by analogy and conflation, tha

    Wisdom differs from truth in that wisdom achieves by analogy and conflation, that which truth achieves by operational description and deflation. It is the difference between storytelling and engineering. Between parable and science.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 10:16:00 UTC