Theme: Truth

  • Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousan

    Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:12:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225074697370505216

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ScottAdamsSays Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ScottAdamsSays Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082

  • Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Re

    Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:09:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ScottAdamsSays WESTERN CIV’S EXPLANATION: Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ScottAdamsSays WESTERN CIV’S EXPLANATION: Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100

  • WESTERN CIV’S EXPLANATION: Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses >

    WESTERN CIV’S EXPLANATION: Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:03:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225052207868858369


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ScottAdamsSays

    I can’t generate any fake outrage about Pelosi dramatically ripping up some paper. And if what we remember of the speech is Pelosi’s disgusted reaction to it, she wins. #SOTU

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225052207868858369

  • TEARING UP THE SPEECH – VS THE WESTERN TRADITION “She tore up his speech means s

    TEARING UP THE SPEECH – VS THE WESTERN TRADITION

    “She tore up his speech means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”

    Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech.

    The western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top, and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests).

    This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one.

    In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.

    Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.

    Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.

    P-Law explains the West, and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 10:32:00 UTC

  • Yes, only reciprocal and truthful speech is free under natural law. And since tr

    Yes, only reciprocal and truthful speech is free under natural law. And since truthfulness is merely a property of reciprocity, it’s only included for clarity. P makes it possible to tell if someone is speaking truthfully (testifiably). So if it’s not irreciprocal it’s open.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 03:31:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224898263112933377

    Reply addressees: @QuestionMThings

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224896600436301824


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224896600436301824

  • Jesus asks us to work to drag those with false gods, failed translations, and me

    Jesus asks us to work to drag those with false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies, out of longing, ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death. But if they resist, they must continue to suffer for their false gods failed translations and men’s lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 18:56:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224768754518777863

    Reply addressees: @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224767935815786502


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays And if European man did not drag a people out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, diseases, suffering and early death using god’s words, then those people are suffering because god punishes them for their false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224767935815786502


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays And if European man did not drag a people out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, diseases, suffering and early death using god’s words, then those people are suffering because god punishes them for their false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224767935815786502

  • “NAXALT arguments fail when the data is accurate and the weight of the distribut

    —“NAXALT arguments fail when the data is accurate and the weight of the distribution is clear. The smaller part of the distribution is already acknowledged but doesn’t falsify the statement that most x ….”—Scott De Warren


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 15:24:00 UTC

  • THE POSITION HIGHER POWER: RELIGION, AND GODS (warning. this topic is challengin

    THE POSITION HIGHER POWER: RELIGION, AND GODS

    (warning. this topic is challenging. It touches on the direction I am working toward with religion)

    —” I appreciate and can support so much of what I understood about #propertarianism. Is their any room for a belief in a higher power? A creator? The final Judge?”–Thor @Sov3r3ignSoul

    In our civilization, despite the jewish attempt at forcing monopoly in each class, we have practiced a market of hierarchies we call Trifunctionalism /Tripartism which includes a Judicial material ‘priesthood’, AND a Religious spiritual priesthood. As always, render unto caesar the material world, and unto the gods the spiritual.

    The science says Physical law, Natural law, and Christian extension of kinship love, constitute the laws of the Universe. These Laws are the only evidence of god’s word, written in god’s hand. If any faith is incompatible with those laws, then it’s not god’s word but man’s lie.

    So there is plenty of room for faith, And you will find Aristotle and Jesus among his few prophets; and European man almost exclusively God’s translators – from his hand into the language of man: mathematics, science, and the Natural Law. And european man God’s only messenger.

    And that’s why European man has almost exclusively dragged mankind out of ignorance, poverty, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death by mastery of god’s word, written in god’s hand – against other’s false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies.

    And if European man did not drag a people out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, diseases, suffering and early death using god’s words, then those people are suffering because god punishes them for their false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies.

    Jesus asks us to work to drag those with false gods, failed translations, and men’s lies, out of longing, ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death. But if they resist, they must continue to suffer for their false gods failed translations and men’s lies.

    Europeans are the gods among men, and first among men. Not because we are yet gods ourselves. But because we think, speak, write, work, create, and spread the evidence of God’s words, his hands, and his will.

    In the language of gods words, hands, and will: Mathematics (geometry), Science, and Natural Law of Sovereign Men. For gods must be Sovereign, Omniscient and Omnipotent. And only Sovereign men may transcend into peerage with gods.

    And for all people, we are challenged to choose which god is the true god: an impersonal god who tests our ability to achieve sovereignty, omniscience and omniscience by learning his words, hands, and will; a god with whom we trade as allies; or a god who we obey as slaves.

    Will you transcend into gods, remain a client, or obey as slave?

    THERE IS NO QUESTION: ARISTOTLE IS GOD’S ONLY TRUTH PROPHET

    Democritus, and others culminated in Aristotle, and Aristotle caused a chain of reaction throughout time. But it is Aristotle who understood the language of the gods in their own hand. And the evidence of man’s transcendence by his translation, and the evidence of man’s stagnation or decline otherwise.

    CHANGING THE JESUS NARRATIVE TO FIT ORIGINAL INTENT

    To change the narrative requires only that we say Jesus – as some have hypothesized – is the son of a roman soldier and a jewish prostitute, who rebelled against both roman conquest of Judea and Jewish abuse of one another, with a message of love one another – surrender your frustration, anger, jealousy, to heaven in exchange for building the bond of trust. And for his rebelliousness against both jews and Rome, both Rome and jews killed him. And then the jews took his message of love and wrapped it in lies, to create a victim hero to replace the greco roman hero Achilles and the Epic Cycle of the aristocracy, and continue the jewish narrative of the underclasses (slaves, slave traders, money changers-usurers instead


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 14:08:00 UTC

  • MORE ALKE THAN DIFFERENT IS A VERY BAD LIE —“While the genetic difference betw

    MORE ALKE THAN DIFFERENT IS A VERY BAD LIE

    —“While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%”—via Tim Abbott


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 13:05:00 UTC

  • Q: “HOW IS P-LAW DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER?” (important) (core) —“How is P law

    Q: “HOW IS P-LAW DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER?”

    (important) (core)

    —“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty

    GREAT QUESTION

    Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law.

    First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts.

    Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must.

    P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above.

    Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another.

    Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability.

    There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does.

    As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country).

    So quite the opposite.

    The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court.

    That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers.

    I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me.

    And that is all that is required.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 21:43:00 UTC