(Cover)
.
.
.
The Law:
An Indictment
A Prelude to War
B. E . Curt Doolittle
.
.
.
(half-title)
.
.
.
.
The Law:
An Indictment
A Prelude to War
.
.
.
.
( quotes page )
“The Genius of Curt Doolittle”
“Doolittle has managed to combine, in an unusual way, the following intellectual traditions: 1)Nietzsche: Aristocratic Aryanism vs Abrahamism. 2) Darwin: theory of evolution, new cognitive science and group evolutionary strategy. 3) Jefferson/Adams: legal theory, statecraft, political liberty. 4) Austrian School of economics: marginalism, Menger, Hayek. 5) Epistemology and philosophy of science: his Testimonialism represents a real innovation. 6) Classicism: Homer, Aristotle, Stoicism / Epicureanism, etc. – Reconstructing civic life and the curriculum which existed in our Universities until very recently (around 1968). Brilliant thinkers specialize usually in one or two schools of thought, not six. Besides, his level of competence in these scientific fields is state of the art. Propertarianism completes science and reforms philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, politics and international relations.”
(title page)
.
.
.
The Law:
An Indictment
A Prelude to War
.
.
.
.
(copyright page)
Copyright © 2019 by _____ All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below.
Imaginary Press
1233 Pennsylvania Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94909
http://www.imaginarypress.com
Ordering Information:
Quantity sales. Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by corporations, associations, and others. For details, contact the publisher at the address above.
Orders by U.S. trade bookstores and wholesalers. Please contact Big Distribution: Tel: (800) 800-8000; Fax: (800) 800-8001 or visit http://www.bigbooks.com.
Printed in the United States of America
Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data
Burton E Curt Doolittle
An Indictment: A Prelude To Declaration of War
p. cm.
ISBN 978-0-9000000-0-0 1. The main category of the book —History —Other category. 2. Another subject category —From one perspective. 3. More categories —And their modifiers. I. Johnson, Ben. II. Title. HF0000.A0 A00 2010 299.000 00–dc22 2010999999
First Edition 14 13 12 11 10 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
(dedication)
Dedication
“For the ashes of our fathers, and the temples of our gods.”
“For those who would rule themselves in self-interest, rule others out of self-defense, rule our people in their defense, rule mankind its defense, and by doing so, transcend man from beasts to humans, to the gods we imagine.”
At the age of twelve, in our small idyllic victorian town, on a Sunday, sitting in a pew in our Roman Catholic church, inspired, I gave an oath to my god: that should I become wealthy, I would build him a church. That oath gave me purpose. And I have sought to fulfill that oath for the entirety of my life. But, I had no idea that while I meant wealth in the form of money and a church in the form of a building, that he meant wealth in the form of knowledge and a church in the form of a revolution, reformation, renaissance for our people, and for mankind. And once I understood, I felt the task impossible and myself inadequate – but through faith, persistence, sacrifices few can bear, and hard work, I may have at least laid a cornerstone, and perhaps a foundation.
(toc)
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
(preface)
Preface
The Cost of Heroism
“Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise. When this is lacking, they grow petty and feeble and their souls disintegrate.”
(Ortega y Gasset)
Origins
In 1992, around the time of the Gulf War, the American Democratic Party launched its campaign to get air time for no other purpose than to repeat talking points and avoid answering questions. At the same time the conservative and libertarians were still unable to argue their positions in other than moral, historical, or religious language.
There hadn’t been a scientific and rational counter-revolution in Conservative political speech to match the pseudoscientific Marxist and pseudo-rational Postmodern left’s counter-revolution against science, nor the level of sophistication in the production of ideology. The left succeeded in postwar construction of yet another foundational mythos in a repetition of the revolt against reason and law by the foundational myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The combination of demand for, and financial incentive to, expand education of the newly affluent working and lower-middle classes, and the new foundational myths that promised a more prosperous future as well as political power, and the quite deliberate purge of western aristocratic, meritocratic, empirical, rule of law tradition, from the academy, actively suppressed the western aristocratic tradition.
The preservation of the eugenics of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche had failed, the preservation of eugenic meritocracy had failed, and the preservation of the relationship between economics and rule of law had failed. All failed to survive the European civil wars. In the postwar period, the conservative moralism of Kirk had failed, the classical liberal appeal to rule of law by Hayek had failed. Even the classical economists who were incognizant of the difference between their classical retention of rule of law and the left’s Keynesian abandonment of rule of law in favor of rule by economic discretion – they either underestimated or were incognizant of the fact that rule of law and classical economics continued the western eugenic tradition.
Sometime in the late seventies those of us in conservative and libertarian circles merely assumed that just as Johnson’s Great Society experiment had clearly failed, that the same collapse would occur in the rest of the world (it did), and that we merely must wait out the bankruptcy here in America, and then the left would ‘see the light’. For this reason the use of debt to produce the military leap that would break the Russian economy’s ability to compete, was preferable and repairable, while the consequences of expanding the left’s increase in consumption would leaves genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional scars on our civilization.
It may not be obvious that the years I spent working on artificial intelligence with the same degree of investment prepared me for and influenced me in this work. But the astute reader will see the evidence, and the obvious potential to apply the ideas to the field of artificial intelligence – in the development of a ‘conscience’.
In Every Age (information, Operations)
(Spirits, Forms, First Movers)
(examples of Wittgenstein and his moving pictures)
(logic and ideal and science to operationalism, transactions, economic demand, competition, and survival – this unites the olde world, reason, logic, justification and science, with the lessons of the 20th century: economics, computer science, linguistics, cognitive science)
The Cause
In every great transformational era cast off the superstitions, errors, justifications, and lies of the prior; and in doing so cause those who either benefitted from the prior era, or find opportunity in the newer, to produce waves of retaliation using new superstitions, errors, justifications and lies.
So each great era consists of a cycle in which old impedimental rents are destroyed, new transformative opportunities are created, organizations and leaders rotate, consumption and population expands, and the gradual accumulation of calcifying rents proceeds yet again.
That is, until a shock by technological innovation, natural disaster, plague, over consumption, overpopulation, over extension, trade route disruption, war via immigration, war by religious conversion, warfare of conflict or conquest, creates a demand to change and adapt the entire order.
If there is either no institutional technology available to assist in the adaptation, or there is insufficient free capital to reorganize leaders, institutions, production, population and skills to produce an alternative order, then, as a consequence, the markets we call cities, are occupied, and the populations replaced, or the system of cooperation collapses, disappears, and is hidden by the accumulation of deposits over time.
Transformational eras are made possible by … the invention of new
Meaningful, descriptive, rational, measurable, commensurable, combinatorial, or transformational technology.
Record by names and descriptions, then by stories, then by writing, …
We compare by ideal types…. Supply demand curves, and equilibria
We measure by counting, then arithmetic, then by accounting, then by geometry, then by calculus, then by statistics, then by non-Euclidean geometries of consistent but infinitely complex constant relations no longer physically possible, but only logically possible.
We reason by examples within our experience, then by analogy to myth and legend; then by analogy to religious parable, dictate, and dogma; then by justification of morals, norms and law; then by correlation with evidence and recorded measurement; and now by demonstration of existentially possible construction using recipes, formulae, algorithms, programs, models, and simulations.
We trade by luxuries, crafts, commodities, fractional interests, information, and time.
We create weights and measures …..
We render the inconstant commensurable by money and prices,…. Property…
We create various monetary instruments ….
We rule by violence, then by religion and ostracization, then by law and punishment, then by credit and consumption, and now by digital reputation and access to opportunity.
We organize by kin, then by cult, then by law, then by administrative division, then by economic model, and finally by civilization.
We practice imitation ethics, heroic ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, and outcome ethics.
Incremental Expansion of Productivity in the Division of Knowledge….
Incremental Expansion of that which has value
spirits, farming, metals, hydraulics, gears, steam, electricity, and now something new.
(myth, reason, theology, rationalism, empiricism, and now somethi
Incremental Suppression of Parasitism
Suppress crime by….
(undone….. solution? The ‘therefore’?)
OUR NEXT GREAT ENDEAVOUR
The Transcendence of Man
( … )
WHAT IS THE PROMISE?
The Fifth Enlightenment
The impact of Propertarianism’s Algorithmic Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimonialism’s Warranty of Due Diligence of Truthfulness will be as great an improvement in mankind’s agency as was (1) Meritocratic Aristocracy, (2) Aristotelian Reason, (3) Enlightenment Empiricism, and the (4) scientific and industrial revolution – and the consequences for mankind profound, enriching, empowering and most of all, transcendent.
( … )
A CHALLENGE
The only test of your ideas is law
If you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in.
You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t.
And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. and the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain.
But we all test that limit at every opportunity.
In anticipation of critics
It’s in the nature of those defending investments in errors, priors, wishful-thinking, frauds, deceits, and lies to seek minor imperfections in the weave of an argumentative greatcoat under the pretense that an inopportune pull will leave the wearer shivering in the winter cold.
But, in our defense, we can deflate any compliment or criticism into incentives, actions, volition, transfers, changes in capital, and method of communication and argument, and determine whether one acts and speaks truthfully and reciprocally under warranty (meaning morally), or dishonestly and fraudulently without warranty (meaning immorally).
The era of psychologism, ridicule, rallying and shaming is over.
- Faith: a Priest Commands Obedience To a fraud – to produce a supposed Good.
- Theory: a Merchant Begs permission to Exchange – to obtain a mutual Preference.
- Truth: a Sovereign Challenges you to Defeat Him – because it is the only way to know the Truth Of his abilities.
So this is my challenge: It will be very hard to undo what i have done here.
(introduction)
Introduction
—“we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint—and degeneracy only another lifestyle.”–thomas sowell
What is this book about?
The explanation of, and resolution of, the great conflict of our age.
It’s the prosecution of a case, including a judgement, and demand for restitution, punishment, and the prevention of any repetition, of innovations in lying, fraud, theft and harm, against those who create the lies, and those who use those lies, those who excuse those lies, and those who are fools for those lies, which have been used to destroy not only our civilization both past and present, other civilizations with the goal of ending all civilization.
These innovations in lying followed the industrial revolution and were industrialized by mass marketing, and they are the source of the conflict of our age. But the technique by which this lying has created in the present is a repeat of the past use of the technique in response to the british empirical revolution, and the greek empirical revolution.
It’s also a case for the restoration of separation between those who desire arbitrary rule, and those who desire rule of law, and a new renaissance for those who desire rule of law. and if this compromise is unacceptable, there is no alternative to the bloodiest war in history – other than a repeat of the destruction of the great civilization of the ancient world.
Objectives
1. to explain the conflict of this era – and all previous eras
. ( … )
The constitution solves the principle problem of the industrial age by demanding truth, reciprocity, and warranty in all aspects of commerce and commons, as means by which to end:
1. falsehood by ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit;
2. false promise,
3. baiting into hazard, and
4. rent-seeking (gains without contribution to the risk of productivity),
5. profiting from harms, or penalty;
6. undermining,
And,
7. restoring power distances commercial, political, and juridical
8. especially juridical defense of private and commons.
By requiring full reciprocity:
1. productive (prohibition on rents and free riding)
2. fully informed ( prohibition on false promise, obscurantism)
3. voluntary transfer (prohibition on takings of demonstrated interests)
4. including by externality (including others indirectly)
5. warrantied (liability for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer).
Where all speech in such matters is treated as legal testimony, meaning it must meet the criteria of consistency in the dimensions:
1. categorical,
2. logical,
3. operational,
4. empirical,
5. rational (rational choice within limits of bounded rationality),
6. reciprocal
7. complete within stated limits,
And the consequences of which are:
8. within one’s ability to perform restitution.
In addition it enacts:
1. Reformations To institutions and processes thereby eliminating all means of parasitism.
2. Restitutions To those who have been harmed.
3. Punishments For those who have done harm.
4. Preventions: changes in the constitution and the law creating a continuous market for profiting from the punishment of these forms of parasitism, once again forcing us into the market for voluntary cooperation in order to survive, prosper, and flourish.
Where;
The Peace of westphalia, by which europeans domesticated warfare:
1. suppressed physical warfare, making states liable for maintaining a monopoly of violence in exchange for protecting the citizenry by limiting conflict to war between states by their militaries;
2. persisted economic warfare, and the benefits therefrom;
3, failed to anticipate or adapt to financial warfare and the harms therefrom;
4. but failed to suppress warfare by non-military means: undermining by pseudomathematics in economics, pseudoscience in the social sciences, sophistry in philosophy, the academy, the law, political speech, and propaganda; undermining by tolerance of hostile political systems masquerading as religions; and immigration of hostile peoples unwilling, unable, or unfit for integration into european civilization sufficiently to persist the benefits to europeans and by extension to the world. There are only three means of warfare: physical, economic, and undermining; and the european world does not defend against undermining because like all peoples we are only conscious of warfare by our civilizational means of it: because of our entrepreneurial rule, near kinship, small numbers, profesional warriors, the use of technology and manerver, we settle differences quickly before they scale, and return to production and taxation. And our civilization, which as entrepreneurial is founded on markets in everything, but prohibiting violence upon each other, is not how the chinese or the semites practice practice warfare – the chinese by deceive, delay, and accumulate power, and the semites by continuous undermining from within and raiding from without; and indians by absorbing and integrating and passive resistance until they reach the limit of their tolerance. The indians and europeans are similar in civilization and strategy, the semites and the chinese are our opposites.
3. each civilization produces harmony by… (china, india, semitia, europe, and africa has not yet)
And where;
5. in every age, from sun tzu in china, to machiavelli in the renaissance, to hobbs, locke, smith, hume, madison, hamilton, adams, jefferson in the empirical enlightenment, to von clausewitz, to frederick the great in prussian restoration of european traditional rule, to lenin, mao, and the great generals of the second world war,
Therefore;
6. this work is structured as The prosecution of war crimes By entire classes of people, and the resulting restitutions, punishments, and preventions imposed under natural law.
7. this work .. (addresses these isues) (institutionalizes this knowledge So it cannot be forgotten.
This innovation in the scope of suppression of crime under our law will be the greatest boon to western civilization since the industrial revolution, and will effectively outlaw the entire leftist program, prosecute, impoverish, ostracize, or imprison (or worse) those who have perpetrated this crime against our people.
While the great lies of the twentieth have caused a hundred million dead and brought about the possibility of a second dark age, the great lie of the continental-democratic age is that we have sold democratic government and anglo capitalism or democratic socialism as a benefit to man, when the organization of government is largely irrelevant, and the economy must always consist of mixture of private for efficiency and innovation and state for strategic investment that is required for all people – it is the european rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, forcing all, including members of the church and state, into productive service of one another in markets out of mutual self interest, combined by that extension of the law of evidence we call european reason, science, logic, and mathematics that have been the cause of our success in the modern age and in the ancient.
2. to provide a reasonable proposition for all parties: This constitution, continuing anglo legal tradition, provides a solution that is the best possible for all parties, without being the optimum solution for any party. However, if this constitution is resisted by opposition parties, then the terms escalate in favor of the traditional america people and their way of life, as the ‘third way ‘ between dominant state, dominant religion: a middle class majority producing a natural aristocracy by market meritocracy, under rule of the natural law of reciprocity. These terms of escalation are preferred by the traditional people over preservation of those seeking to use the political, economic, and military scale of the continents, and the ease of obtaining political power under first past the post, majoritarian democracy, lacking any criteria for the franchise, while using underclass immigration, to achieve by invasion what is not achieved by ideas, evidence, or results.
3. to de-escalate, de-monopolize, and re-specialize: to facilitate the separation of groups into separate political orders wherein each can produce commons preferred by their groups without imposing upon the preference of those who desire to produce different commons. This separation restores voluntary association and disassociation, and restore political customization, as was present in all of european history – even under a loosely federal church. And restores that political customization which was the intention of the original american constitution, and that demand for political customization that remains the demonstrated interest of all present political factions – despite each seeking to dominate the others and obtain a monopoly rather than separate, in violation of american, british, european, legal, social, and economic traditions….wealthy enough to specialize
4. to depoliticize: (restore rule of law and markets)
.( … ) decrease the power distance.
( … ) (power via the state)
( … ) ( restoration of the jury )
De-discretionism (restoration of rule of law/courts)
( … ) ( undone )
( … ) ( prevention of pooling and laundering )
Re-statement and restoration (of our rights)
( … )
( .. ) definition of alienation, prevention of alienation, illegality of proposing alienation.
De-disintermediation of legal standing
( … ) (restoration of universal standing in matters of the commons) (undone)
De-centralization
( … )
6. to de-consumer-predationize – increase consumer protections both public and private:
.( … )
7. to de-financialize: We include the largest economic reform since the roman empire, and the reorganization of the treasury and financial system such that it is in the interests of the working and middle classes that desire to raise families. Aside from the reformation of the law, the economic reforms are the most influential and will provide the greatest benefit to the people regardless of political interest. The greatest frustrations of the european people are due substantially to the abuse of our people by the financial system – abuses which if the people understood fully, would alone cause revolt and demand for this constitution.The talking points are: nationalization of consumer credit, and all consumer credit issue direct from the treasury at simple interest dependent entirely on your disposable income; management of the money supply by distribution of liquidity directly to consumers into their treasury accounts, instead of distributing through the financial class and the banking system – this will cause businesses to fight for your money, not you fight for credit that puts you at risk, and extracts your income from you when it was your country the money was borrowed from in the first place; the acquisition and nationalization of the consumer credit card network; and the creation and distribution of multiple currencies on those cards, so that we separate the monetary economies of survival, and preferential goods and services, similar to how we use ebt cards for food stamps today. This means your home will be paid off in ten to fifteen years, meaning a one-income household can afford a home and children, your cars will cost sticker-price – and the eradication of the credit collection network..
De-financialization:
DEfinancialization of the financial system. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).
By nationalizing mastercard, and issuing one every legal and fully integrated citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the money supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.
Furthermore, by professionalizing ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do cpa’s), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.
This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors. There will be no other way to profit than the silicon valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.
Financialism will be destroyed forever.
De-individualism-corporatization and re-familialism
( … ) ( undone )
Re-civilism of education, healthcare, defense
( … ) ( undone )
8. re-familism – to restore the family As the object of policy and society – not the individual.
.( … )
10. re-civilism – to restore the civil society and social harmony
.( … )
9. re-testimonialism – to restore truthful speech:
.( … )
5. de disinformationalism – to de-disinformationalize
.( … )
De-propagadism (copyright / testimony)
Politics
PRopaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response.
The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We must rely upon intuition – we have no other choice.
The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to freudian psychology, to keynesian economics, the anthropology of franz boas, to the outright fabrications of the frankfurt school, to the postmodern philosophers, to american feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media.
These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means.
In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons.
We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgment on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’.
The media (undone) ( … )
The academy (undone) ( … )
The arts (undone) ( … )
Advertising and marketing (undone) ( … )
Religion (undone) ( … )
11. to prevent another dark age:
.( … )
12. to bring about a new renaissance
.( … )
The constitution
1. you can, we can, anyone can, write a constitution In propertarianism’s natural law of reciprocity, – or what we abbreviate as ‘p-law” – for any system of government, any economic model, and for any group of peoples, as long as it is stated in the vocabulary, grammar, and compositional form, of p-law – and as long as it’s fully reciprocal, transparent, and its claims are testifiable by man.
P-law, like mathematics or programming, expresses constitutions in formal operational logic, that eliminates the ability of the political class if there is one, from engaging in parasitism upon the people, and eliminates the ability of the people within the population engaging in parasitism upon each other. The only challenge we have found, is that it is difficult for those wishing a purely theological order to convert theological statements of law, to scientific statements of law – although it is possible – the faithful resist the reduction of the empathic to scientific terms.
Given that we can write a constitution for any political, social, and economic order using p-law, Our objective is to produce a set of constitutions In p-law For all european peoples – and for any other peoples who seek to enjoy the returns on rule of law by reciprocity – the system of rule of the european peoples. And while all such constitutions will overlap considerably especially given our new articles i, ii, iii, iv; and while this constitution may be used as a template for future constitutions, what we have presented here is a constitution for the reformation and restoration of the united states of america and an end to the conflict whose present course is certain to lead to civil war.
We have learned from history that unstated compromises become unstated presumptions.
Therefore we caution readers that when drafting a solution of this scope to a problem of this scope we have erred on the side of completeness; and while we doubt any modification of the Law Put forth in the Articles, that we anticipate some tempering of policies in The Acts.
4. we have chosen to reform the existing constitution Of the united states of america in continuation of the group strategy and political strategy of the european peoples, and in particular the northern european peoples, so that we may preserve the disproportionate utility of the strategy of the european peoples, and the anglo-american third-way of a rapidly adapting, middle class majority, commons-producing, nuclear-family, high-trust civilization and its civil society – not only for our own present and future, but for mankind’s present and future.
5. this constitutional reformation includes a set of amendments To that constitution of the united states of america that repeal, restate, and reform the preamble, articles, and amendments of that constitution. The principal reasons for reform rather than replacement are a) to preserve the corporation of the state as a “going concern”, reducing the continental and international military, economic, and political uncertainty, conflict, and chaos that would ensue otherwise, and b) to preserve the military, judiciary, treasury, and function of insurer of last resort, thereby prohibiting foreign interests from obtaining a political, military or economic foothold on the continent; while c) devolving the choice of normative policy – meaning social policy – to the city-states, states, counties, and localities.
6. a caution: you will undoubtedly encounter concepts that are novel particularly in economics and law – and some political propositions that while true, have been subjected to foolish, dishonest, or fraudulent criticism during and after the french counter-empirical enlightenment period. We beg your patience in thoroughly understanding the full scope of this work, and wee put forth the suggestion that despite your anticipated surprise, conflict, or rejection: It is extremely unlikely that we err In our assertions, arguments, or propositions. The reason being the innovation upon which this reformation rests, is the completion of the scientific method, and it’s extension from the physical to the psychological, social, economic, legal, political, group strategic, and military disciplines. And not only have we thought through the consequences of these propositions but producing those consequences is the purpose of these propositions. And should anyone disagree with them our first question is whether they understand those consequences, and if so, our second question must be why they wish to preserve the capacity for deceit, fraud, theft, and parasitism that destroyed the ancient world, produced a dark age, and threatens the present repetition of both.
In preparation for the future
We are, all of us, victims of the circumstances of our experience in the era of our maturity and education. Because of this natural bias to the present, we have difficulty envisioning a future that is very different from the one we anticipated, and the forces that bring it into being that are beyond our control.
In preparation for the future we prudently present the future challenges that will exacerbate the present challenges, if we do not adapt to that future rather than attempt to reconstruct an impossible past.
(painful truths) in addition to correcting the crimes of the past, organize for the future.
Falsehoods of the twentieth and twenty-first
Integration has been a failure worldwide
1, end of the european period
2. the end of ‘growth’
3. the end of genetic capital
2, the end democracy
2. the usa’s interest in instability in the world, not stability
2. restoration of the balance of powers
3. the restoration of total war and the end to european domesticatino of war
3. the problem of judaism and islam
Remilitarization for return of total war
Reorganization of the state and military
Military: state, trade, economy, education, culture, information,
Conflated military, state, law, govt. Must again deconflate and divide functions to prevent the repeat of this failure.
Reorganization of government
The british experiment
The government of the british empire during the colonial period and up until the second world war, was the greatest achievement in political organization in european history combining rule of law, a monarchy, houses for the classes managing assets, the church for those lacking resources and ability, and the entrepreneurial and scientific classes’ technological, economic, legal, financial, intellectual superiority, and the long standing cultural openness to meritocratic rotation in the classes by one or one’s family’s demonstrated achievements.
The monarchy, nobility(lords), and the house(commons) made a few understandable but avoidable mistakes – because they were following an ancient tradition – a tradition whose origins predated their historical knowledge – without understanding the reasons for its successes – a failure we correct here.
Those mistakes were rather simple in retrospect: the failure to understand the reasons for their disproportionate successes; the failure to write the constitution in formal language insulated from abuse; the failure to create a house for each of the colonies, thereby preventing the american revolution, contributing to the american civil war, and the subsequent failure of the colonial project, and especially the failure to transform india from whom it had extracted yet failed to complete transformation; the inclusion of labor into the house of commons instead of creating a separate house for labor upon the failure of the church to transform in the face of the darwinian revolution; the inclusion of women into the house of commons rather than a separate house; an attempt to maintain the balance of powers rather than the german expansion, and the russian recapture of constantinople, reversing the islamic conquest. And the failure to transform the lords into a supreme court for the legislature and weakening it instead; and finally a weakening of the monarchy’s role as judge of last resort – meaning veto – due to the failures of the political process, the fashions, passions, and fears of the day, to which all peoples are subject, and from which the monarchies are of their nature and interest, insulated.
In effect, the failure of the british to grasp that the government had served as a market between the classes despite their different interests and scales, and that under rule of law they had created not only the worlds most successful commercial market for the production of goods, services, and information – but the world’s most successful market for the production of commons.
A market for commons allows the unavoidable differences between classes of families, each of which has demonstrated different ability, to engage in exchanges within the political sphere, without resorting to propaganda, deceit, and coercion outside both inside and out. instead, our peoples were made vulnerable to the industrialization of false promise, baiting into their own hazard, comforting deceits, and bribery in government and finance in exchange for the destruction of the institutions that had made their disproportionate success possible.
The american experiment.
The american experiment included many of the same failures as the british, and some unique to the states. The single success was spectacular if inadequate, and that was: a declaration, federalist papers, constitution, and bill of rights, stating the natural law of sovereign men, and their natural right to life, liberty, and property and a government for the ‘third way”: a middle class government, of commercial meritocracy without aristocracy or nobility, in an attempt to defend itself from the parasitism of the church and the landed nobility.
The canadian experiment
( … )
The australian experiment
( … )
The big lie of the anglo revolution and continental counter-enlightenment
( … )
The un-earned franchise past and present
( … )
. . .
Is this philosophy, law or science?
Testimony: actions, truth, decidability vs philosophy, words (text), choice
WE are what we do. i am, as are all of us, what i do. and in the past, what i do was called a philosophy – at least when referring to aristotle.
We have no word today for what i do. neither philosophy, nor the law, nor science is sufficient. Instead, my work unifies science, law, and philosophy, combining them into what i call testimony or Testimonial truth.
I am writing to, and speaking to you in Testimony, using the vocabulary and grammar of natural law. natural law is the equivalent of the physical laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, but for the human sciences of language, psychology, sociology, ethics, economics, politics, and law.
Please don’t blame me for the obvious confusion between Physical laws of nature, and the Natural law of man. our ancestors left us with these terms. I inherited them just as you did.
Writing in Testimony Will sound much more like i’m a prosecutor than a philosopher or scientist. That’s because philosophers advise, scientists describe, and the law decides. So the law doesn’t – and i don’t, prevaricate with comforting or polite words open to interpretation. The law does, and i do, prosecute claims, and judge the evidence. And we aren’t addressing a subject for cheerful or comforting discourse.
Decidability: science, natural law, testimony
Choice: Philosophy
Advice: wisdom literature: mythology, hinduism
Advocacy: secular theology: continental philosophy,
Training (therapy): Buddhism, stoicism
Requirement: theology: abrahamic, buddhist,
Testimony, natural law, physical law, measurement, logical facility, memory
Logical facility, mathematics, physical science, natural law, economics,
Testimony, ordinary language, description, narration,
Storytelling, history, fiction, literature, myth.
Fictionalism (sophisms)
… idealism > platonism > surrealism
… magic > pseudoscience
… occult > supernatural (theological)
And last of all, Deceit
. . .
Audience
Who is the audience?
- The Curious Who would like to learn something new – even if it’s only to learn that such a thing as propertarianism exists.
- Activists Seeking political change regardless of political and moral bias.
- Revolutionaries The world over who seek a shovel-ready solution to political orders in modernity
- Politicians Looking for solutions to the transformation of the post-communist-capitalist world.
- Philosophers Who would prefer to speak in a scientific rather than literary prose – and prevent themselves from obsolescence.
- Jurists Who seek a basis for their intuitions that it is possible to create a formal and algorithmic body of law.
- Artificial intelligence Researchers and developers who desire to solve the problem of rational, ethical, and moral general artificial intelligences.
- Software developers Working in various monetary substitutes who are seeking a language that more readily explains their ambitions.
What you will like
( … )
What you will not like
( … )
When justice delivers her verdict, without exception, it provides all parties internal to the conflict with equal dissatisfaction. And i suspect that will be the reader’s experience.
. . .
How to read this book
THis book (or what is traditionally called a pamphlet) is organized by from accessible explanations in the beginning to increasing complexity toward the end so that we can reach most audiences with it. you need only read those parts that you are comfortable with – or all those parts that might find value in.
Parts 1, 2, and 8 – if you consider yourself the Average person, part 1, part 2, and then skip to part 8, that is all you will need to read. Although i suspect at some point you will want to know more.
Part 3 – if you want to understand the definitions and learn how to understand basic terms of economics, government, law, truth, and lying, then read part 3 also. Although you will discover my use of lists and formatting. And some people find this very organized and enlightening, but others find it confusing. Why? They require you have a bit more knowledge, but they help you remember more complex ideas easily.
Part 4 – if you want to understand the abrahamic technique of lying that caused the disasters of the ancient world and threaten a repeat by creating the present conflict in the modern world, then read part 4 – abrahamism.
Part 5 – historical problems of the religions
Part 6 – religion constitution, and what distinguishes a good religion from a bad
Part 7 – the crimes done by abrahamic methods of deceit past and present
Part 8 – the indictment, the judgement of natural law, the offer of settlement, and the demand for restitution and threat of punishment.
Why the terms, lists, diagrams?
You will notice right away, that in testimony, we use a lot of lists of various kinds. That’s for a number of reasons: Creating measurements from words, simplifying complexity, helping you jog your memory When you need to, and helping you Scan for ideas When you need to jog your memory.
1. turning ordinary language into a system of measurement
For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a Number line. and when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same.
So in testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others
So let’s use ‘Moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often.
Good, moral, ethical, right amoral, wrong, unethical, immoral, evil
Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point.
Good < moral < ethical < right < |amoral| > wrong > unethical > immoral, > evil
And then define them as actions:
Good: when you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you.
Moral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t.
Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t.
Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t.
Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t.
Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does.
Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do.
Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t.
Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you.
Where the “Constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others.
So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech.
When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in testimony can use them the same way. And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use.
We call this technique “Disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ and then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated.
Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “Commensurability” Regardless of the subject matter.
Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences.
Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is Reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim.
And that is the purpose of testimony: to create a System of measurement: A value neutral Language For the discussion of reality (what we call metaphysics), physical sciences and the human sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law politics, and group strategy.
A value-neutral language for use as a fully commensurable, system of measurement, for the non-physical sciences.
2. charts simplify complexity
(…)
3. jogging your memory
( … )
4. ease of finding by scanning
( … )
Most of the time, whenever necessary or possible we’ve included a chart and an explanation, and a selection of readings that apply it.
Definitions > charts > explanations > readings (essays)
So whatever your reading style, you should find a comfortable way of understanding the topic, and then you can return for more information later if you want to, or find a need to.
Vocabulary
All disciplines require specific terminology, and propertarianism, which is a formal construction of the natural law of reciprocity, like existing law as practiced in both common and continental varieties, must produce statements that are both decidable, and not open to manipulation or interpretation, which in turn requires a very precise vocabulary.
We use a sometimes painfully rigorous vocabulary. And to begin with, english is already notable for its preference to appropriate as many terms as possible from as many languages as possible, rather than, as under its german origins, compounding terms. To some degree, we take this property of english to its natural conclusion.
Resulting in:
|Definitions| operational > narrower > corrected > redefined > Neologisms
Operational definitions: to reduce conflation and increase deflation – to remove tendency to misinterpret the term.
Narrower definitions: once we organize related terms in a series, we will narrow the definition of those terms.
Corrected definitions: many terms – particularly those with platonic or ideal (rather than operational or empirical) definitions must be corrected. An extreme example being that a “number” consists of a positional name, and that is all.
Redefinition: (reframing) in some cases terms are defined a framing that is either false, pseudoscientific, archaic, or deceptive. So i’ve redefined them with operational framing. For example the choice of capitalism versus socialism is a choice between rule of law independent of discretion, and arbitrary rule consisting of discretion. Framing the choice as economic ideals obscures the operational differences.
New terms (neologisms) : some new terms where older terms would be conflationary or confusing.
Many “-isms”: Definition: -ism: “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy (method of decision making), that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain.” to understand the meaning of “-isms”: requires one know the categories, values, method of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. so -ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. In many cases we will define the term in the glossary. If not then wikipedia often provides a simple version and the stanford encyclopedia provides a thorough if often more confusing version.
Style guide
Bold To allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by Keywords.
Capitals For names of ideas, like “rationalism”, “sovereignty”, “propertarianism”.
Parentheticals To bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.
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.
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.
The methodology
“i categorize p as describing the intellectual foundations of western civlization that the populists are currently demanding, but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”
What we call or “the propertarian project”, “Propertarianism” (a system of measurement), “sovereigntarianism” (the first cause) or ‘natural law of reciprocity”(the method), or “the natural law of the european peoples”, or any other of the names we use within it, is as large a reformation as were the aristotelian (reason), augustinian(compromise); british empirical (first scientific); and the darwinian era’s (second scientific) revolutions – and we should consider propertarianism’s position in intellectual history as the completion of the darwinian scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the completion of the aristotelian research program, fully disambiguating fictions (visions), theology (wishes); philosophy(choice), law (cooperation) and science(decidability), and completing the scientific method.
This completed scientific method also allows us to differentiate between reciprocal and truthful and irreciprocal and un-truthful speech. It’s a large project that reforms and modernizes every discipline.
But, you don’t need to understand the entirety of this project to understand this Constitution. You need only understand that there is far more behind its construction that might be obvious, and whenever you find something counter-intuitive, it’s because of that underlying reformation.
The Second Declaration 