Testimonialism

Freedom of Speech or Truthful Speech? Which Should We Defend? by John Lilley

By Curt Doolittle

(Note from John Mark: One of the most important shifts the grassroots Right must make is from defending free speech - which contains the seeds of its own destruction because it allows our enemies to rally masses of people to the cause of parasitism and destruction of our civilization - to defending truthful speech and punishing false public speech. This codifies the #1 secret of Western Civilization - truth over face, speaking the truth regardless of consequence, whereas every other culture puts face over truth - into law.)

Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?

—“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2

Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons).

(Note from John Mark: Holding people accountable - punishing them if they lie - in matters of the commons would produce a massive breakthrough in our civilization, similar to the scale of the discovery and application of the scientific method.)

So …

When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech.

Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades.

The reason is that government is violence.

You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE.

Now what does this mean in practice?

It means that there are three common sense tests:

Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
.

Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
.

Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim, or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding you claim, or are engaging in deceit?

In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency).

In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bais, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong?

It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by roman roads.

Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as christianity and islam were to antiquity.

In this sense we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech.

Which is exactly how the Enemy Left operates: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality.

Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way.

Curt Doolittle

Do Your Due Diligence! (Unintelligent, Lazy People Pollute the Informational Commons) by John Lilley

By John Mark

I learned something important as I read the comments section after a recent video interview: Unintelligent people who mean well, even those who are “on our team” (the grassroots Right) and have the same instincts as us, can still cause problems. Lazy and/or uninformed people do too. These people end up being irrelevant, but they can waste valuable time and energy. They won’t stop our progress toward victory, but they can slow things down a bit.

The interviewer himself, as is usually the case, was smart and well-informed, and he is not at fault for any of what I am about to say. However, when I read the comment section, I observed a pattern:

IGNORANT PERSON: Makes a blatantly false or misleading statement or claim, from which it is obvious the person has not done any due diligence, or else their IQ, knowledge and awareness is only slightly higher than that of a rock.

INFORMED PERSON: Takes the time to correct the false or misleading statement. Sometimes an argument ensues (mostly consisting of insults and evasion from the ignorant person).

REPEAT.

Examples:

“Curt Doolittle is a boomer” (Incorrect, irrelevant, lame GSRRM)

“Propertarianism is just warmed over libertarianism” (False, and “warmed over” has no meaning) (anyone who says anything similar to this knows nothing about Propertarianism) (I think low-IQ, lazy people hear an “ism” and they assume it’s another weak ideology that won’t get the job done; total failure to do any due diligence)

”The concept of reciprocity this guy talks about is vague and not well-defined, it’s not helpful" (False. This person has obviously done zero due diligence, since Propertarianism defines reciprocity very specifically.)

“Haha this guy talks about 4G warfare unironically” (Um, the entire military, the entire leadership class of every nation on earth, and all experts in the field talk about 4G warfare unironically.)

You get the point.

In an environment where time is of the essence, where we are trying to reach as many new people as possible to build consensus around a solution the entire grassroots right can support as the American political volcano is getting ready to blow, this utter stupidity, laziness and outright lying hinders and/or wastes people’s time. It is the equivalent of soldiers spreading disinformation to their fellow soldiers and leaders in wartime.

So do your due diligence. Ask all the questions you want, but study thoroughly before making claims and pronouncements. Before you say anything, ask yourself, “Does this help our team win?”

Because good intentions are not good enough. Good right-wing (civilization-preserving, civilization-advancing, anti-parasitic) instincts are not even good enough. The right wing has had these great intentions and instincts for a long time, and look where it has gotten us in recent decades. We must know how to win, which means first and foremost we must operate in truth.

The only thing good enough is doing your due diligence so you don’t lie and pollute the informational commons. And if you’re not smart or hardworking enough to do that, just shut up. Because all lying in the public sphere requires somebody to do twice as much work to go around and clean up the mess you made. It imposes a cost on our movement and on our civilization. It slows down the progress of our civilization by pushing backwards, against the grain of our #1 civilizational success secret (seeking and speaking the truth), which then forces someone else to expend valuable time and effort pushing back in the other direction.

If you’re going to criticize, fine, then make an argument and offer a better solution. When it comes to Propertarianism, we are about 9 months into our “wider popularization phase”, and at this point, while a very large number of people have been exposed to it and “like the idea”, the number of people who have done enough serious due diligence to even try to make a real criticism of it, is still small. And the number of people who have a better solution to offer is zero.

If you do not have a better solution to offer, it is extremely unlikely that you are knowledgeable or intelligent enough to make a valid criticism of the best solution on the market. And if you’re such a genius that you casually call the 160-IQ multi-millionaire tech entrepreneur founder of Propertarianism “stupid”, then go create your own solution and sell it to the masses. You won’t, because you can’t. Because you’re a poster boy for Dunning Kruger.

This touches on an important concept in Propertarianism: operational thinking. Some of the offhanded criticisms we hear are simply the result of people indulging in idealism. Classic example: “I want a restoration of religion. Nothing else will do!” Sure, you can have your religion if you want it (as long as it’s not parasitic), but is that “the big fix”? No, because what religion are you going to successfully shove down the whole grassroots Right’s throat? Think about what’s possible, not what’s ideal in your little mind. Can you sell your solution to the entire grassroots Right? No? Then it’s a fantasy. Get real.

Propertarianism provides an updated and upgraded constitution. The grassroots Right will buy that, because they are accustomed to a constitution. And they will embrace the changes that constitution produces, because it will improve their lives dramatically. Instead of criticizing that which you do not understand, how about this: Go produce your own constitution. Go ahead. Sit down and start writing. Suddenly you will realize how difficult it is.

I should also note, part of this dynamic I’m highlighting here is just people in the lower half of the IQ curve who happen to be on our team, expressing a desire for a solution framed in terms they can understand. They hear “ism” and say, “I don’t relate to that.” They hear “rule of law” and they say, “I don’t relate to that” (despite the fact that in the West they benefit from it every day in a thousand ways they take for granted). They want an inspirational strongman or king to tickle their ears, or a religion to tell them what to do without requiring them to understand much more than simple rules.

We can’t really blame the unintelligent for acting unintelligent. But we do need a way to reach them. This is something I’m thinking about. Part of the solution is that the wider our net reaches, the more we sell the policies and the less we focus on the nuts and bolts of Propertarianism. At the same time, we can teach the average grassroots Right-winger the basic definition of reciprocity - if you can memorize the Pledge of Allegiance, you can memorize the definition of reciprocity - and we can make the word RECIPROCITY our one-word narrative (the counter to the Left’s one-word narrative of EQUALITY), because it captures the right-wing instinct in a nutshell.

In closing, if you’re new to all this, do Western Civilization a favor. Do your due diligence. Asking questions is fine. Making statements and expressing “I’m not sure about this” if you’re not really sure about it, is fine. Making confident statements without doing due diligence is not fine. And if you’re short on time or ability to properly do due diligence, trust those who are smart and have done their due diligence - get behind the movement that the smartest, best quality people on the Right are latching onto: Propertarianism.

Many people are busy with life, and that’s fine. Not everyone has the time or mental horsepower to study Propertarianism in-depth. And that’s fine. They can tell from the policies we recommend, the basic concepts, and the simple fact that we are planning and strategizing for the future rather than just wringing our hands, that we are sharp and have something great to offer. Many people end up deciding what to support largely by saying, “What are other people like me supporting?” and “What are high quality people latching onto"?” Propertarianism meets this description.

I’m a pretty good example. I have a good amount of ability - I think that’s obvious from my results from 9 months on YouTube. I could have lent my abilities to anything. But I’m choosing to lend my abilities to spreading Propertarianism. (Because when I found it, I felt like I’d found what I’d been looking for my whole life - a whole new level of explanatory power, and the holy grail of politics.) And I’m far from the only one. Great ideas attract great people. The people I interact with in the Propertarian community are impressive. We’re being interviewed, recommended, and contacted by many of the major influencers on the right wing.

And we’re just getting started.

Productive People Prefer Propertarianism by John Lilley

Lady Justice sculpture.jpg

By Curt Doolittle

(Note from John Mark: This is one of those epic Curtposts that he is famous for.)

When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law

—“Your version of Propertarianism requires oppression; denial of equal political rights and full free speech – your dude Mark is already posting how your society will require the first amendment to only allow speech your “truth-judiciary” greenlights.”— N6 @SignHexa

Propertarianism (Natural Law) would restore Defamation & extend commercial liability and warranty to the content of economic, political, and scientific speech, made to the public, and convert Free Speech to Free Truthful (meaning Scientific) and Reciprocal Speech. No More Lies.

How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public?

How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum?

How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral?

Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exchange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’?

You see you have nowhere to go.

1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.
2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.

So;

Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment?

You see, we are happy to let you continue to spread your favelas in your urban “Plantations” (ghettos in training), but we are not willing to let you take our Ethnic groups, our Civilization, our Institutions, our Culture, and our Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom with you.

But you are not willing to Reciprocate by Separation (Devolution or Secession) because you cannot survive on your own without the vast middle – the central achievement of western men: a middle class civilization of Reciprocity, Contract and Law: Markets.

So you leave us no choice but civil war.

You are exposed for what you are: a mob of undomesticated, ignorant, barbaric, thieves, ungrateful for the prosperity, freedoms, provided for you by the middle classes of the ancient and modern world, and happy to return to the gutter of equality in poverty you came from.

One needs equal protection UNDER the law to have ‘RIGHTS’. But may only have political ‘POWER’ having demonstrated OBSERVANCE of that law, and achievement under that law: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Voluntary Cooperation in every aspect of life.
(You don’t)

So you do not want rights, you want power to violate the rights of others. There is only one natural law, one right, from which all other rights descend both logically, operationally, and empirically: Reciprocity. Because other than reciprocity one can only harm, steal & defraud.

Now, do you see what I did there? I used categorically, logically, empirically, operationally consistent, fully accounted, speech to end your ability to engage in False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Undue Praise, using Sophism, Critique, and GSRRM.

That is what I teach people.

I teach:
– The Natural Law,
– The Science of Testimony,
– The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
– The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
And their application to:
– The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

I teach:
– The Natural Law,
– The Science of Testimony,
– The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
– The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
And their application to:
– The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

Now you are a naturally dishonest, deceitful, polluter of the informational commons as a practitioner of Abrahamic False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Pilpul and Critique. A useful idiot for smarter men. But….

I am quite willing to bet, even my life, that the majority is not like you, but ethical and moral, and when given the choice of a truthful reciprocal commons where genders, classes, races can conduct exchanges (disciplined behavior for redistribution) in Government – We win.

Because the truth is that the reason people are unhappy is YOU and the rest of the Useful Idiots who took the genealogy of Abraham > Marx > Stalin > Alinsky > Feminists > Postmodernists > Political Correctness to create conflict between genders, classes, races.

When you offer, as did the jews, christians, and muslims, ignorance, poverty, and decline during the last abrahamic dark age. And you are in the process of creating the next – in a long oscillation between the prosperity created by western man’s truth, reciprocity, and markets…

… and the ignorance, poverty, suffering, of those who destroy them.

The only problem facing western man in the ancient world and in the modern, is that we lacked a book of parables (histories) and scriptures (laws) beyond which no man or woman may tread.

That’s not true any longer. We have our “scripture” of the ancient and modern world.

We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law.

Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities.

Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation.

Political power that is Egalitarian (open to all of merit and observance of the law) not Equalitarian (independent of merit and observancy of the law).

The only possible counter proposition is that a given group is of such failure in genetics, ability, habits, culture, religion, and institutions, that it cannot engage in productive, voluntary cooperation with others.

Meaning they were demonstrably inferior, and those who could compete were demonstrably superior, and that the central problem is one of self perceived status as inferior.

The solution is separation, separate political, economic and status systems.

Which is how we evolved. So when John and I get to that point, of making a series of videos that explain our position vs yours. And present a constitution that is pure, and another than is tailored to the condition in the west, it is very hard for me to see that you and yours win a moral majority.