Thread by @curtdoolittle

All: Thoughts Please:
1. In a recent interview @NSKinsella complained that we'd appropriated 'propertarianism' for my work.
2. I agree since it associates the work with Rothbardian 'libertarianism'. (Middle class Marxism).
...

2. When I started out, I thought I was just going to convert Hoppe's work from continental rationalism to anglo science.
3. I used 'Propertarianism' because of my expansion of Hoppe's reduction of all questions of social science to tests of property to all human behavior.
...

4. But that expansion of social science into all cognitive and behavioral science is just a tiny part of the work. Testimonial Truth, Reciprocity, Operational Logic, Grammars, the explanation of European group strategy, and a universal European constitutional law followed.
...

5. My work transformed justificationary Jewish pilpul (sophistry) of Rothbard, and German Rationalism (sophistry) of Kant to Hegel to Marx to Habermas to Hoppe, into anglo science and operational logic completing the scientific revolution, and defining the scientific method.

6. By maintaining an '-ism' we associate our work on the SCIENCE of DECIDABILITY(law) with these prior philosophical sophistries (secular theologies), where philosophy serves as a secular bridge between theology and science. And the work is an anti-philosophy (science).
...

7. There isn't any 'philosophy' in my work any longer. The purpose of science (producing testimony) consists of discovering and articulating the laws of nature at every stage of stable relations (complexity), as an unambiguous operational (formal) logic.
...

8. So positioning the work as philosophy even by association is just creating a "False Promise" of yet another secular theological justification - not the science that we have produced. (IMO this is part of the reason we still attract the wrong crowd ("nitwits and midwits")).
...

9. From the perspective of the 'intellectual industry' what we have done is provided the Scientific counter to the Positive Law sophistry that was brought into anglo common law via Bentham and Austin. But Mostly by the Jewish Positive Movement: Kelsen, Rez, Hart, and Dworkin.
...

10. That Jewish positive law movement, like the other Jewish social pseudosciences (including Rothbardian) is an attempt to convert our common law of sovereign people into the elite managerial law of serfs practiced by the jews and the french (via the Catholics).

11. As many of you know, I wanted to change the name first to "Testimonialism", then to just 'Natural Law' or "The Law of Europe".
12. I began moving the Institute that direction this spring just to test it. And it seems fine. (Even though natural law is an abused term.)

13. But I think it's time to move out of the business of promoting a science as if it was a philosophy to those who just want an ideology or religion - into promoting scientific legal and policy solutions that provide the only viable counter to the new Judaism of the left.

14. It was useful to try to repeat the strategy of the Mises institute's success on the web before 2010 (Thanks to Jeff). But with the capture of social media if not all the internet by the left, and the demonstrated 'nitwittery' of the right, the strategy has failed.

15. We cannot convert the disenfranchised 'nitwittery' into a movement. We tried. (Call it a folly but at least we tried to move them from fundamentalism and naziism back into rule of law.)

16. So despite the demand from the nitwittery for salvation from gradual disenfranchisement and extermination, and the emotional and psychological rewards of the attention they give - we need a clean break from the nitwittery who only serve to prevent awareness of our work.

17. So I think it's time to abandon Propertarianism to the Rothbardians and let them do with it as they will. And for us to continue work on logic, law, and policy, and to complete the Jeffersonian-Hayekian-Scalia Scientific Law program.