The Natural Law

B. E . Curt Doolittle









The Natural Law





( 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 Natural Law
The Law of Nature





(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

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



“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.


Table of Contents


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8



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)


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’?)


The Transcendence of Man

( … )


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.

( … )


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.

So this is my challenge: It will be very hard to undo what i have done here.



—“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?

( … )

What’s the Objective?

( .. )

. . .

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
: 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

. . .


Who is the audience?

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.

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 measurementA 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.


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 > 

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.

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.

Part 1


1. Man



Human Beings in A Few Paragraphs

The human brain grows in utero, biased in organization, either for the female Synthetic(conflationary) by hemispheric integration (side to side), short term (temporal), experiential(emotional), personal (empathic), preferable(experience) and dysgenic(quantity); or the male Analytic(disambiguating), by hemispheric isolation (back-to front) long term (intertemporal), analytical(intellectual), political (empirical), truth(action), and eugenic(quality) – with each of us resulting by genetic bias, to demonstrate some point on that distribution, between the Female Solipsistic-to-Psychotic and the Male Aspie-to-Autistic Extremes.

And because the brain is organized as it must be, to give attention to that which provides the most information, and because that which receives attention (novelty identification, rehearsal to integrate for recall, and reinforcement through recall), provides the associative-foundation for subsequent learning (framing), and as a consequence, the associative bias for subsequent learning.

As such we think, display, speak and act, within our genetic biases, including the preference for the most easily understood frame (Feminine empathic to Masculine analytic),the most easily understood means of expression (speech), the most easily understood means of advocacy(approval/disapproval-empathic/personal vs truth/falsehood-analytic/political), including our means of argument (approval/disapproval independent of truth/falsehood, vs truth/falsehood independent of approval/disapproval).

And while we currently (poorly) articulate intelligence plus five factors of personal (personality) bias: openness/novelty-consistency/familiarity, Extraversion-Introversion, Agreeableness-Disagreeablness, Conscientiousness(Organized)-Impulsivity(Disorganized), Neuroticism/Worry-Calm/Mindfulness, we all cluster around three common (stereotypical, archetypal) combinations: mother, ascendent male, and established male. Evidence in argumentative methods, educational degrees, occupational intersets, and voting patterns.

And while we currently (rather well) articulate six factors of interpersonal(moral) biases, Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression, we all cluster around three common (stereotypical, archetypal) combinations: liberal(mother), libertarian(ascendent male), and conservative(established male). Evidence in consumer and voting patterns.

And our Success or Failure is dependent upon (a) our genetic conscientiousness, (b) our genetic intelligence, (c) our learned mindfulness, (b) the ability of our family to teach any or all of manners, ethics, morals, craftsmanship and artisanship, management of others, professionalism, entrepreneurship, finance, and politics,  finance a career or business,  (e) our masculine disagreeableness for discovering of truth regardless of consensus, our feminine agreeableness for discovery of  consensus,  and (e) the demographic distribution of the polity in relation to the available means of economic competition.

And our conflict strategies vary accordingly between feminine undermining and reputation destruction (‘ostracize/kill’), and male argument and hierarchy construction(‘discipline, correct’).

And our anti-social behavior varies accordingly between feminine social hostility by promiscuity, emotional terrorizing, social undermining, and male physical hostility by substance abuse, violence, crime.

While each of us appears impenetrable as an individual given the abilities and biases we possess, the memories we possess, and the context we live in, in the aggregate, all populations adhere to these evolutionary tendencies, with the principle variation between groups very few factors: (a) the degree of neoteny achieved,  (b) the bias in gender dimorphism achieved, (c) the verbal acuity achieved, (d) the demographic distribution of ability (class) and therefore (e) the strategy institutions,, traditions, norms, that are necessary for that degree of neoteny, verbal acuity, demographic distribution.

This is a summary of mankind, and there is very little if anything about mankind that cannot be understood by and explained by this knowledge.

. . .


1. Mind and Consciousness

Man – Mind


“Man Must Act”

(dark forces of  need, time, and ignorance)

|BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive >
 cooperation drive > personality > intuition > reason > calculation >
 computation > markets > symmetries.



( … )


1. sense (neurons-nerves)
2. disambiguation (constant relations – cortex),
3. perception(integration-prediction – cortex),
4. intuition (auto-association-prediction) (hippocampus-cortex + valuation(emotion))
5. attention (attention-prediction) (thalamus-hippoampus-cortex),
6. will (recursion-prediction) (prefrontal, thalamus, hippocampus, cortex)
7. and release of actions;



1. Our attention rotates in a competition between sensation(observation and construction by prediction and reward identification), imagination (possibility by association), holding attention on a goal (possibility by continuous opportunity seizure), and releasing predicted actions (in pursuit of the goal).

2. We rotate between sensation (observation and construction by prediction), anticipating (goal prediction), and storing (remembering by stimulating and rehearsing), on a 1/10th of a second rotation (Theta) creating competition and choice.

3. There is no observer, other than the memory of an observation.
4. There are no observations other than sequences.
5. There is no comparison of observations other than to previous sequences.
6. There is no order in sequences other than that created by sequences.
7. There are no sequences other than those of sensations.
8. There is no existence sensed, other than those changes in time.
9. Without change we cannot sense time.

Existence is a verb
Experience is a verb
Imagination is a verb
Consciousness is a verb.
Because Acting is a verb – and we can only act in time.

Without action, we produce no existence, no experience, no sequence, no memory, no consciousness.

There is no observer other than the observations (hierarchy of increasing of sequences of memories in time.

We see what the camera sees.
We do not record images, but sequences of related stimuli.


Arousal is not Consciousness

Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created.

We can interfere with any number of parts (Colostrum) and shut down experience. That doesn’t tell us anything.

The question is, how does that mushy wetware synthesize past memory present experience, and future prediction, from millions of nerves (measurements) into our rather amazing conflated experiences of past, present and future? (cortical hierarchy, parahippocampal, perirhinal, entorhinal cortices and subiculum.)

How do we shift between narrow focus, near perception, environmental perception, self perception, and deep introspection and imagination? (thalamus)

Why is it we can react so quickly that we can hit a curve ball with a bat? (basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cortical prediction)

How do we Assemble memories and experience them? (Hippocampus)

What is that feeling of me? (mostly, hippocampus)

Why can’t we pin it down.

“Cause it’s a verb not a noun”.

The continuous change in state in a hierarchy of ever smaller cycles of time….





Neural Economy

( … ) Hayek’s knowledge, tradition, habits…. limiting burden of reason.


The Will To Act


(necessary  … preservation of the will to act … dunning kruger confidence )

2. Sex Differences

Man – Sex Gender Differences

The Division Reproductive of Labor in Gender Specialization

Dimensions of Evolutionary differences

There are only a few directions the brain can evolve:

1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development).
… a) developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in.
… b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin.
… c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume.
The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions.

2) Sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development.
The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk.
We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females.

Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men.

Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure.

One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused.


3) Successful in Utero Development (… ouch …. )

3) Distribution:  ( … )


(There is no prescription for a human, we are limited only by failure.)

Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men.

And our differences ( . 2 )


Male vs Female Behavior

1 – Males mature rather slowly, and may not speak for two years after females, and in the absence of dominance play, even more slowly – maturing in their early twenties. Females mature rather quickly, and are increasingly quickly, and are generally mature by 16-18, although cognitive maturity (agency) seems to appear in mid thirties, where cognitive agency in males appears in late teens to early twenties.

2 – Females bear a higher cost of reproduction and are more dependent for others, during long years of child-caring and defense. Males have a near-zero cost of reproduction. However, in general, females and males favor female choice of mate – but after mating males appear to exhibit some form of ownership over females for a number of years.

3 – Male aggression is frequent and short term, seeking negotiation for position in the hierarchy of antagonists. In general, male aggressors are given status by males as long as they are creating order rather than threat. Female aggression is infrequent and never ending, seeking total destruction of antagonists. Males use dominance expression, threats and violence, women use disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossip, and reputation destruction to cause panic and vulnerability in other females. Female aggressors are granted social status by females less aggressive.

4 – Female cognitive bias is equalitarian, and male cognitive bias hierarchical. This is evident in our moral biases, where females tend to more exclusively favor harm,care, and proportionality, and males tend to also favor reciprocity, sacredness, and hierarchy. These biases correspond to property rights today, and property rights correspond to political preferences.

Liberal/Females favor individual property rights (Consumption):
a. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)
b. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)
c. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)

Conservative/Males Favor Community property rights (Saving):
d. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
e. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
f. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

The male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females and territory. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe – precisely because they could be captured and then reduced to lower status and possibly death under the females of another tribe – this is the origin of female behavior. Female attachment may exist but throughout history females have exposed more children to the elements than men have killed in war.

In other words, females evolved the herd cognitive and moral biases, and males evolved the pack cognitive and moral biases.

We ameliorated our sex differences in strategy, cognition, and moral intuition, by pairing-off, and controlling alphas. This compromise was generally in favor of females since the majority of females reproduced, and the minority of males reproduced. This persisted until (it appears) agrarianism where

Behavioral Change In Females and Males

1 – Not so much reproductive independence as financial independence, and the end of the necessity of the two-person family at the cost of lower standards of living.
2 – Women fill the middle (easy) job roles in society and are better adapted to changing between those roles. There is no reason this trend will not continue. The question is, without the necessity of marriage (caretaking of a man in exchange for economic support) ‘marriage’ is just a mating ritual, and the purpose of marriage as an institution is ended. Women mature early, generalize, and adapt to the needs of the social order. Men mature later, specialize, then adapt, and integrate into social orders less easily.
3 – Women have expressed greater psychosis (crazy behavior) and are under heavy medication in the USA, where men are just lonely and committing suicide in large numbers after fifty.

Gender Differences in Internal Hierarchy (Status) Conflict

(men are horses and women are zebras)

Gender Differences in Negotiation and Argument

The Genders differ in their competition, conflict and warfare strategy.

Males: Truth under threat of violence in the service of male solidarity in the preservation of the Tribe and Territory is the competitive strategy of males. Males fight for position in the hierarchy and end conflict with increases in loyalty to one another.
— vs —
Females: conformity under threat of reputation destruction in the service of female solidarity independent of Tribe and Territory is the competitive strategy of females. Females fight to destroy or kill without ending.

Gender Differences in Acceptance of Blame – Truth vs Face

( … )

Gender Differences in Antisocial Behavior

( … )

Gender Differences in Attention

( … ) (many vs few)

Gender Difference in Observation

(…) personal, political

Gender Differences In Interpretations of Generalizations

One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused.

( … ) Next curve

Gender Differences in Friendship Construction

Gender Differences in Loyalty vs Devotion

Gender Differences in Adaptation

Gender Differences in Political Bias


interetemporal division of moral perception


The Origins of Political Conflict in Gender Strategy

Mothers must talk to their children in moral language in order to control them at low cost – their approval and disapproval – when children are dependent upon mother for cognitive processing and security.

Women try to scale this technique to men where it only works in exchange for sex and affection instead of shared cognitive processing and security.

Women try to scale this technique to politics where it only works by undermining political orders, by obscuring the physical and economic reality of parasitism they’re pursuing as if they are still feeding their own children, or trading sex with men for resources and security.

This is why politics has become impossible. Because women have made us compete by undermining and lying rather than informing and educating the public. Because emotional appeals that justify intuitions of the ignorant semi-domesticated animal is much easier to distribute than knowledge, understanding, and necessity.

This wouldn’t be possible and we had given women a separate house of commons, and retained the historical competition between women’s emotionality, manipulation, half-truths, and undermining, and men’s calculation under threat of physical retaliation. We cannot any longer use violence against our women for gossiping, rallying, ridiculing, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing to create deceit by obscuring truth with disapproval, in matters of truth and falsehood.

So without a market for exchange-and-compromise on truthful contract terms, and without the ability to punish women’s approval before truth, and punish men’s face before truth, we are reduced to a small number of men perpetuating the origins of the success of western civilization and women’s privileges that derive from them, by demanding truth before face, truth before approval or disapproval, and contractual exchange on truthful reciprocal terms.

The same is true for the Jewish (feminine lying) and Muslim (masculine lying) means of undermining western civilization’s universal demand for truth regardless of the cost in all circumstances.

We are the only people who practice truth-before-face, and truth before approval, forcing contractual exchange on truthful reciprocal terms, dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty.

And expansion of the franchise to those who have not yet demonstrated truth before face (masculine), and truth before approval (feminine), was our only substantial mistake.

And we made that mistake because we did not understand the oath of adulthood, the jury, the size of the jury, the thang, the senate, the senate and house of commons, the house of lords and house of commons, as markets between classes with different responsibilities and abilities and demonstrated FAMILY competencies, just as we had produced markets for goods, services, and information.

And we have only realized today that the market for information is as, if not more important, than the market for goods and services in an information economy.

As such we must restore our past mistakes, restore our markets, and restore our prosecution, and our zero tolerance, for anything other than truth-before-face, regardless of the cost to self or others, so that we may produce contracts of reciprocity.

Postmodernism(Political Correctness, Denial of Cultural Racial and Class Differences) and Feminism(Denial of Gender Differences) are attempts to undermine the uniqueness of western civilization’s MALES. Males who speak Truth before Face, Truth Regardless of Status, Truth Regardless of offense; Truth regardless of the Competence Hierarchy, Truth regardless of the Dominance Hierarchy.

The entirety of our way of life, Rule of Law, Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Jury and the reason, science, and technology that arose from it, are dependent upon the ond thing western men do that no other people do: and that is to report and report alone by speaking martial, empirical, testimonial, truth before face – anyone’s face – regardless of cost to self or others. This is the highest cost an individual can pay for his civilization. And institutionalizing it has only been done once: at the origins of western civilization, thousands of years ago.

Why the change: women cannot bear it, that is why they are easy victims and practitioners of feminism and postmodernism. Women fight one another by undermining with words. So among women, because they have had so little time in the public sphere, truth before face has not been institutionalized. And just as women were sold christianity in the ancient world, they have been sold postmodernism and feminism in the modern world. And because they (a) spend 80% of the income (b) spend the majority of money (on unscientific non-STEM courses) in university, (c) consume 80% of tax revenues, (d) white women are the only group that defects against their males, and vote against truth before face, against meritocracy, and against defense of the commons from consumption. They have the entire Cathedral Complex (State, Academy, Media, Finance) working to cater to their denial, and doing so by degradation of men, truth before face, rule of law, and the entire western edifice that has made women’s freedom from labor and servitude possible.

We spent millenia outlawing male anti-social behavior, but we have ceased outlawing female anti-social behavior, and face before truth, denial, and undermining are anti-social behaviors that must, like violence, be equally suppressed.

That’s what our Natural Law did, and that’s what it must do again.

It’s a test of Reciprocity: If men may not undermine by violence and force, women may not undermine by denial, gossiping, rallying, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, ridiculing, and will limit themselves to truthful reciprocal speech, not disapproval and undermining as a substitute for truthful speech. If not then men will return the favor with their method of undermining, and then both genders lose.

3. Personality, Intelligence, Moral Differences


intelligence, traits,

big five personality traits


1 – Conscientiousness [the activity & in some cases overlapping into the agency dimension] (the most trainable of all the traits upwards although after 11-12 years old this becomes harder, and increasingly so into one’s 20s and 30s);

Conscientiousness was associated with increased volume in the lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior.


2 – Agreeableness [in some sense the agency dimension and separates men as disagreeable and women agreeable] (remarkably stable throughout life, although there are Kuhnian paradigm shifts [huge life-changing events or epiphanies usually] that slide extremely disagreeable people to the other end of the scale or vice versa I);

Agreeableness was associated with increased volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals.


3 – Neuroticism [the right hemisphere / threat perceiving / negative emotion dimension](immovable upwards in a similar way to IQ [we haven’t found a way other than drugs yet] and bad life events oft make neurotic people hyper-neurotic);

Neuroticism was associated with increased volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative emotions.

5 – Extraversion [the left hemisphere / opportunity perceiving / positive emotion dimension] (low-mid range trainability either way but high reversion rate so training has to be maintained);

Extraversion was associated with increased volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in processing reward information.

4 – Openness [the creativity dimension, highly correlated with IQ] (the most interesting in that it appears people can train only toward their side of the fence…open people can ‘open the doors of perception’ [to use a Huxlian term] and closed people tend to become even more specialised as they mature, but cases of Kuhnian shifts have not been documented afaik, but there are almost always exceptions);

Openness/Intellect did not have any significant correlation with the volume of any brain structures.

6 – IQ [pattern recognition] many things bring IQ down (smart professors not doing exercise for example) but nothing is known to raise it, yet.

( CD: I use male (compartmental) vs female (integrated) first. then the six dimensions that includes above, which then explains male-female difference in Factor TRAITS, including male vs female in IQ distribution as well. )


6) The underlying model of the mind is information processing not subjective experience, and while 5/6 Factor models do correspond to what we think we understand as brain structures, our understanding of those models are a REWARD system for processing information in a DISTRIBUTION, so that humans SPECIALIZE even within families, is problematic for the Diagnostic and Totalitarian thinkers (equality), and explanatory and useful for the Negotiation and Cooperative thinkers (inequality). So if we say that variations in personality reflect the necessity of using the same physical mental structure for the purpose of distributing information processing, then we describe man correctly, and we describe our industrial era norms as FALSE and DESTRUCTIVE.

7) Given my present understanding, a reframing of personality as reward system for information processing:
a) Dominance(male) vs Submission (female) spectrum provides insight but it’s also so obvious that we all but ignore it. Whereas it’s contrasting dominance and submission with the other traits that provides explanatory power in why we act and feel as we do.
b) Impulsivity vs patience related to patience-worry in that we can worry but not act, or worry and act, and the correlation between impulsivity and neuroticism are predictive. Why? Because it appears that neuroticism (patience/worry/obsession), is the cause of creativity.
c) Conscientiousness should be reframed as reward for completing opportunities and reward for discovering new opportunities. d)Agreeableness should be desire to adapt to others vs desire to preserve context (individualism).
e) Openness to Experience should be reframed as desire for adapting to information vs stress from adapting to information.
f) Neuroticism should be reframed as acceptance(watching) vs worrying(excitement) vs obsession(chasing prey), where worrying is itself a time preference (living in the certain moment experiences vs projecting an uncertain future conditions, vs in pursuit of prey or idea),
g) the autistic(male)-solipsistic(female) spectrum provides greater insight than all except intelligence and extroversion, and we are just beginning to understand it, and almost no one interprets it as a problem of processing information in a group of males and females with different reproductive demands.
h) Intelligence is as important as extroversion in personality traits, in no small part because it appears that the limit of our minds to exhaust opportunities across these personality traits determines out resulting behavior (this is profoundly explanatory).

Now, I placed the properties in that list in a particular order. That order is informative. It means that very few causal properties are involved, and we are not quite achieving our goal of understanding them.

a) Rate of Sexual Maturity
b) Depth of Sexual Maturity
c) Gender Differences
d) Gender Dimorphic Differences
e) Status (biological/reproductive), Demonstrated/Observed, Self Percieved
f) Sense of Safety / Security
g) Intelligence
h) Culture
h) Education and discipline





METHOD: Gender > Factor(dimension) > Trait (bias)



personality aspects



Screen Shot 2019-11-23 at 12.39.15 PM.png


Screen Shot 2019-11-23 at 12.39.00 PM.png



( … Clustering)

Average: These people score high in neuroticism and extraversion, but score low in openness. It is the most typical category, with women being more likely than men to fit into it.

Self-Centered: These people score very high in extraversion, but score low in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Most teenage boys would fall into this category, according to Revelle, before (hopefully) maturing out of it. The number of people who fall into this category decreases dramatically with age.

Role Models: These people score high in every trait except neuroticism, and the likelihood that someone fits into this category increases dramatically as they age. “These are people who are dependable and open to new ideas,” says Amaral. “These are good people to be in charge of things.” Women are more likely than men to be role models.

Reserved: This type of person is stable emotionally without being especially open or neurotic. They tend to score lower on extraversion but tend to be somewhat agreeable and conscientious.





1 – Measured Intelligence, or Intellectual Capability, is equivalent to a personality trait. There is such a high correlation between openness to experience and intelligence that this idea will go mainstream in the next decade if it has not already. Intelligence may be the most important personality trait other than conscientiousness.

2 – The remaining personality traits, (five or six factors, and ten or twelve dimensions) and their predictable gender biases, affect the application of intelligence.

So like Anna Karenina’s “all healthy families are the same, and all unhealthy families are different”, or like the domestication of animals, which requires a certain combination of behaviors are present, demonstrated intelligence requires not only its presence as an ability, but the absence of traits that interfere with its expression.

In other words, many things must go right, and if any of them goes wrong, we do not demonstrate that intelligence (or at least do not demonstrate it beneficially).

3) So, demonstrated intelligence depends upon the following:

a) What we call ‘g’, or general intelligence (which has many components but all scale together), which is a loose measure of the rate at which you accumulate information and identify patterns – the obvious differences being the female verbal and the male spatial biases in brain structure. Despite claims as far as I know, it is not possible to alter it.

b) What we call ‘Working Memory’ or ‘Short Term Memory‘ – the ability to preserve states over time. As far as I know, despite claims, it is not possible to alter it.

c) General Knowledge – the totality of knowledge (information and experience) that we can draw from in identifying opportunities for patterns. (Hence why being well-read and thoroughly socialized are best things that you can do to improve your demonstrated intelligence. )

d) What we call “Personality Traits” that do not negatively interfere with the expression of one’s intellectual capacity/measured intelligence/g. The first is conscientiousness, and the second is agreeableness.

e) The Preservation of Incentive to Act  (Dunning Kruger, consensus bias)

….Self Image, Guilt, Trauma, Rejection

f) And the wildcard of “beliefs and wants”. One can increase the correspondence of one’s thoughts with the universe, or one can decrease the correspondence of one’s thoughts with the universe. If you want something that is impossible, or you believe something is false, you will constantly err, and accumulate errors. The more false and impossible beliefs and wants, the more error you will accumulate.

g) The Polity  … “Demographic Distribution”  ( … )

h) The Genetics … “neoteny, group cog biases (feminine masculine)”

i) The Culture  … Group Strategy

j) The Economy ( … ) “…Degree of Development…”

Our primary drive is status, whether self-image,  reputation or behavior of others toward us despite our self-image and reputation.

And the majority of failures of intelligence are caused by the inability to develop, or lack of training in, the mindfulness (stoicism) to judge one’s value in the markets for communication, association, friendship, productive cooperation, reproduction(family), commons production, political production, and military production.

So many of us wish the world were different, and go slightly foolish, anxious, depressed, or entirely mad, because we cannot tolerate a self-image that corresponds with reality. Meaning, we cannot develop a self-image that accurately describes our market value to others: Our Status.

Otherwise, trauma causes similar dysfunctions, since trauma forces us to work constantly to avoid activating parts of our memories ( minds, brains), via association. This becomes exhausting. Which is why hallucinogens work so effectively at allowing us to observe experiences rather than feel them, and therefore create alternative pathways and weights that allow us to circumvent those traumas (land mines).

I prefer:

1) Moral biase: feminine(left) < balanced(libertarian) > masculine(conservative),
4) Gender bias: empathic-solipsistic < balanced > autistic-analytic
2) Trust: altruistic-trusting < balanced > not-trusting-selfish,
3) Relations: extraversion < balanced > introversion,
5) Discipline: rigid-organized(closing things off) < balanced > intuitive(preserving options)-irresponsible,
6) Patience: endurance-patience < balanced > frustration-impulsivity,
7) Stability; paranoia-fearfulness < balanced > confidence-steadiness,
8) Intelligence: verbal IQ in .5 std deviations from 100. (scale of -5 to +5 because more or less is irrelevant.)
9) Spatial IQ in .5 std deviations from 100.


4. Classes Differences


Reproductive Classes

Ugly asymmetric, disproportionate, people, with low neoteny, low gender dimorphism, with low intelligence, and anti-social personality disorders, dysfunctional families, beliefs, habits, and traditions.


Beautiful symmetrical and proportional people, with high neoteny, high gender dimorphism, with high intelligence, and pro-sociality, functional families, beliefs, habits, and traditions.


Elite – Extremely desirable
Upper – Desirable throughout life.
Middle – Desirable through fertility,
Upper Lower – Desirable during peak fertility.
Lower – Desirable only as ‘settling’ (last resort)
Lowest – Undesirable

Economic Classes


6. Species and Races


The Axes Of Human Variation 

1 – Degree of Neoteny (asian white indian iranic semitic pacific african – testosterone levels, in that order)
2 – Rate and Depth of Maturity. (Same as above)
3 – Size of the Underclass through reproductive suppression and upward redistribution. (iq levels)
4 – Gender Distribution of Gender Traits (emphasis vs reversal)
5 – Group evolutionary Strategy using Gender Traits (Semitic maternal, asian paternal, western compromise).

Biological Differences in Species of Human (Races)






The Major races are species or we’re lying. We can either lie that human were not speciating and had not speciated as other animals and agadon the term race for species and sub-species lie every other life form, or we can preserve race as a synonym for species when regarding humans. Every alternative is lying.

Racial Differences 
Primary differences between races are due to degree of neoteny in climate, size of the underclass also because of climate, distribution of male and female biases (traits) between the genders in the group; and the norms, traditions, customs, formal and informal institutions that were necessary for those traits in that distribution in that region.

As far as I know this is settled. Take any group’s IQ distribution and select 105. take the curve above 105 and find that percentage and standard deviation. Apply that standard deviation below 105 (mirror the curve). The new curve represents the people who are not a burden to mankind.

Attached is the chart of world GDP per point of IQ, and it’s pretty obvious that the rate of decline is very fast after 95 – in fact it’s just a cliff. (the outlier is china with low gdp).

Immigration has to be limited to something on the order of 125 and above, and young and old put to useful work for a polity to produce returns in the current world.

There is no way to preserve our high trust society without insulation from those groups not yet having achieved sufficient eugenic evolution who will achieve here what it has elsewhere: regression.

All Groups Can Transcend The Animal

1) All groups can transcend the animal and evolve to fully human, and from fully human to our image of gods if they merely suppress the rates of reproduction of their lower classes.

2) Classes (distributions) matter far more than race. Among elites in all races, the primary differences across cultures appear to be verbal acuity – the ability to precisely articulate ideas.

3) As far as I can tell if people are fully integrated AND middle class or above (>105 IQ), and especially if they can obtain an empirical education (>110-115), they present no long term problem in small numbers because they try to obtain the benefits of membership in OUR society rather than attempt to obtain rents and political power on the behalf of their lower classes.

4) blaming others for our failings is simply an excuse not to act to change the status quo. the reason we are being invaded is the man in the mirror. States can only do what the warrior class (lower and middle-class men) allow them to do.

On the other hand, if we build a worldwide alliance against corporatism and return to familialism, tribalism, and nationalism, it does not matter if we are different – it just provides us more opportunity to experiment, and more opportunity to win.

And moreover, with many small nations, there is MORE ROOM AT THE TOP than there is in a ‘new world order’.



1. Vitruvianism

I call it Vitruvianism in honor of Davinci’s Vitruivan Man.

—“Man is the System of Weights and Measures for all things Human”—

But the first man to say it:

—“Man is the measure of all things.”— Protagoras

2. Acquisition and Demonstrated Interest


“Man Acquires”

“All behavior is reducible to the incentive to acquire interests. we can enumerate those categories of interests we seek to acquire. we remember those things we have invested in as costs, and defend those costs. (our complex interests some of which are our possessions”

1 – Time is limited and the only infinite scarcity
2 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.
3 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe.
4 – Man must act (move) to acquire and inventory resources,
5 – Man must remember to decrease the cost to acquire and inventory resources.
6 – Man must defend that which he has acquired and inventoried. (His possession is demonstrated by what he defends from loss, and what he retaliates for imposition of costs upon.)

Demonstrated Behavior

Man acts to obtain the greatest return, in the shortest time, with the least effort, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest risk.

Demonstrated Interests


Three Means of Acquisition

( … Three Means of Acquisition )

3. Emotions

( Man Emotions )

4. Aesthetics



What is excellence? Excellence is Art.

Dimensions of Measurement
There are three dimensions of art criticism:
– Craftsmanship (includes materials)
– Design (the play of order(composition) and bounty(beauty) and perception)
– Content (the content and values of that content)
All art can be judged by triangulation (comparison) along these three axis. There is no possible cardinality to art but ordinality can be achieved by recursive triangulation.

1. Craftsmanship (Craft) (Physical)
… Materials
… Technology
… Skill

2. Design (Design) (Sensory)
… Pattern (Sensory Aesthetics, Order)
… Depth (Complexity, Hand of man)
… Beauty (The Presence of Resources)

3. Content (Art) (Meaningful) Signal Value
… Capturing
… … Utility vs
… … the Experience, vs
… … the Moment or Era (good and bad) vs
… … the Culture or Civilization, (good and bad) vs
… … the Eternal Condition of Mankind

… Intention to Make Art
… Hand (Time) of Man, Degree of Investment (Scarcity)
… Fulfills its Promise (honest)
… Innovation (Mastery)
… Uniqueness (Novelty)
… Scale (decoration to monument)

… Measurement by Triangulation
… Competitiveness (by triangulation)

Sums To
… Culminates in Excellence

You. You and your experiences. Like reading text, the content you experience is a combination of your memories, with the art. ( Opera is an acquired taste. )

All human action can be tested by this method. All of it. Everything humans do.

Like many things our ‘taste’ consists of personal associations (subjective) to objective measures. We can measure the quality of art. “Your taste is a measure of you, not art.” So like vocabulary, or manners, or style, or other opinion, we retain some constant values, but learn to improve our taste: a skill.

“Beauty is the presence of resources”
“Excellence is the presence of Human Investment”
“Human investment is the evidence of time invested”
“The evidence of human mind and hand”

Children > Amature > Student > Practitioner > Craftsman > Master Craftsman > Artist > Representative of Movement > Peak of Movement > Peak Across Movements

All Art Begins with Monumental Architecture and Devolves to Decoration and Handcrafts
– Monumental Architecture is self selecting due to cost.
– Monumental Sculpture is self selecting due to cost.
– Monumental Painting is self selecting due to cost.
– Life Size Representationalism (not photorealism) in painting is self selecting due to cost (hours).

– Painting, Print, and Photography are not self selecting.
They are middle, working, and lower class substitutes for monuments.
– Even for the upper middle and upper class, and out-of-sight class, the few pieces of quality art that are canon (mentioned in art magazines and books, and references, or which had popular press) are inaccessible. Demand is just too high. So given the high signal value of art (yes it is an extreme expression of dominance), the market has had to experiment with novelty in order to satisfy demand.
Much of what ordinary people rail against is the same as railing against fashion: for those in the fashion industries (of which display art is a member) novelty has to function as a substitute for scarcity of craftsmanship quality (note my particular distaste for the so called ‘art glass’ industry).

– Monumental works convey ideas (allegiances, heroics, beauty)
– The demand for low cost high production ‘decoration’
(a) may form an icon or ‘remembrance’.
(b) may decorate the environment.
(c) may reflect the monumental, life sized, and representational, is misplaced in non monumental size (which is what most of us intuit as great work).

– Monumental work is misplaced in most homes and offices in market (business) and is generally reserved for the political and institutional and aristocratic.
– Most homes cannot support monumental work and require only design (decoration).
– Most people are actually not capable of design, or capable of acquiring the monumental.
– As such the colorful, abstract, the impressionistic, are to homes as type design and color pallet are to print and display advertising.

– when people purchase relatively well made ‘design’ (abstract, gestural, impressionistic) of architectural size (to fill a wall) they are practicing good aesthetics (not acting on pretense).
– when people pay homage to the monumental in private spaces, they are practicing good aesthetics. (small engineering drawings, paintings of flowers, well constructed prints)
– when people pay homage to the monumental in architectural spaces (your living room, hallway, or dining room, or office) you are (a) alienating others, and (b)  … ( … ) …


Artworks, whether craft, decoration, design, or art, need only fulfill their promise. This is why student and amature art fails. In order to fulfill the minimum promise the work must not make false promise. We can appreciate good craft, decoration, design, and art. We can appreciate all the arts by the same criteria: craft, decoration, design, and art.

Japanese ritualistic behavior in food preparation, cooking carpentry, and the crafts is the best example of institutionalized excellence. Italian design has never been equalled. Gothic architecture never equalled. German music never equalled. Russian literature never equalled.

—“Are you saying there is a formula to produce beautiful architecture, paintings, movies, music, statues etc”–Carl Persson

A formula is via positiva.
Science is via negativa.
So Reverse that.
Knowledge is not closed.
Language is not closed.
Symbolism is not closed.
We can know bad art.
We must discover good art.


5. Agency



Agency refers to the capacity for human beings to identify opportunities and make choices that are consistent, correspondent, existentially possible, and coherent with and within reality, and to act upon them, unimpeded by knowledge limitation (ignorance), intellectual limitation(intelligence), mindfulness limitation (impulse), physical limitations(body), instrumental limitations(technologies), resource limitations, the impediments of others and their organizations into norms, laws, institutions, polities, and armies. Perfect Agency would require omniscience, omniscience, and complete insulation from impulse. So, Agency, like Truth, or infinity, or perfection, or godhood, or moving half-way across Zeno’s line, describes an infinitely logarithmic curve: There is always more to be had.

In social pseudoscience, one’s social, economic, and political agency is limited by ‘structure’ (institutions), and their (socialist) implication is that differences in income are an institutional choice not a necessity of human cooperation (natural law). In social pseudoscience then, we are considered to be equal in ability but unequal in institutional benefit. So we extended Agency by correcting the falsehood of equality and necessity.


We are constrained both internally and externally. We have five sets of internal faculties:

– Physical abilities (actions), one of which is speech.
– Senses – the five senses
– Intuitions
– Reason
– Technical Knowledge (actionable knowledge)

Each of these faculties grants us abilities – some more, some less, because we are individually physically, intuitionistically, and rationally better or worse in our abilities.

We are further constrained by externalities:

– Geography
– Resources,
– Institutions of Cooperation – meaning norms, traditions and laws, and the economy.

We can work to improve our physical abilities – with training

– We can improve our senses with discipline and instruments.
– We can improve our intuitions with training.
– We can improve our reason with training.
– We can improve our speech – with training
– We can improve our knowledge – with training

We can work with others.

– We can work with others to improve our geography, resources, and formal and informal institutions.
– We can work with others to improve our productivity in goods services and information.

As we improve our internal and external ability to act, intuit, think, and speak, we improve our Agency.

The Three Acknowledgments of Agency:

1) I acknowledge that I can exercise some level of control over my thoughts, feelings, and actions.

2) I acknowledge that I am responsible to control my thoughts, feelings, and actions to the best of my ability (within my natural limits).

3) I acknowledge that I must work to develop the mental, emotional, and physical fortitude necessary to exercise my Agency.

“We are just another self-domesticating animal.
Some of us more successful at it than others.
Nothing more complex is at work.”

Biological Origins: How Much Agency Do We Have?

Women and men demonstrably think very differently because of the difference between utility and truth, and between proportionality and reciprocity, and between dysgenia and eugenia. Why do we assume that this same cognitive bias is limited to gender rather than a balance between the genders, and that different groups don’t just demonstrate the male cognitive bias or the female cognitive bias?

Truth, Reciprocity, and Physical Violence that Ends when Ended, VERSUS Fraud, Proportionality, and Reputation Destruction that Never Ends until Destroyed.
Violence and Threats VERSUS Shaming, Ridicule, Gossip, Straw Manning, Rallying, and Reputation Destruction. Those are the Male versus female competitive strategies.

HERD <————–——> PACK
Utility <———————> Truth
Proportionality <—–—> Reciprocity
Equality <——————> Meritocracy
Dysgenia <—————–> Eugenia
r <—————————–> K
F<—————————–> M

There is nothing in mankind that is complicated other than the lies we tell ourselves and others in order to achieve our desired ends.

Male and female reproductive strategies are at odds. And we have little Agency in the choice of those strategies, at the individual, group, civilizational levels. Everything else is a consequence.

So everywhere and everywhen, we discover compromises whether reciprocal or not in order to cooperate, or at least minimize conflict, between our different reproductive biases, interests, and strategies.

There Is No Reason or Agency Among Animals.

Speech provides the illusion that the rider controls the elephant, when in fact, there are very, very, few of us whose elephants correspond to reality, and as a consequence so do our riders. There is a reason that the animals do not argue rationally – because they lack agency, and because they lack agency, they are not in fact human.

Just as children do not have the self-control of adults, many adults lack the self-control of others. While we may learn self-control of our bodies. We may learn self-control of our emotions. We may NOT learn self-control of our thoughts. We use the term ‘Agency’ to describe independence of our thoughts from physical and emotional impulses, from the bias of our intuitions, and from the bias of our thoughts. In this sense, some people are fully human (they have developed agency) or they are not fully human (they have not developed agency) and are still ‘animals’.

Who Is and Isn’t Human?

Is the line of demarcation between human and animal:

1) Morphology?
2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli)
3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action)
4) Consciousness (time – space)
4) Speech?
5) Reason? (Agency)

As far as I know, it is Reason and Agency that separate us from the animals.  That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal. And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the Pareto minimum.

Our process of self-domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature.

|HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans
 < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals.

We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate. But we left the job unfinished.

Reversal: Genetic Tolerance for Graceful Failure – Agency and Morality

The evolutionary reason some of us have agency and most of us do not is that our reason is subject to temporal failure, and our information is subject to intertemporal failure, and instinct provides a very successful method of graceful failure in the face of limited information, limited time, and limited reason.

Meanwhile, selection for success of those with Agency allows others to adopt new knowledge and understanding by imitation without abandoning their dependence upon intuition.

This is the same reason we still have cheaters. While cooperation is most beneficial under ordinary circumstances, cheating (immorality), and predation (violence), are extremely valuable methods of graceful failure.

The animal-majority is insurance in case we fail. But they are not to be taken seriously in what makes us succeed.






System G (genes),
System 0 (property),
System 1 (intuition/search/continuous recursion),
System 2 (steering, reason, calculation, computing)

The ‘puppeteer’ (returns search results constantly)
The mind handles exceptions (or disparate choices)
Negotiation (morality) is an exception handler.

I disagree with Chomsky, and I am fairly sure that Jeff Hawkins, and Kahnemann and his references, are correct: we just constantly search and re-search memory, and we pre-load any sequence of actions that have high value and then we become aware of the predicted outcome, and we choose to accept the proposition of our search, or we reject it, or we weigh it (research it, and reason with it).

I like the “Systems” metaphors because they’re abstract. It is easier to understand the “Elephant and Rider” metaphor. And the ‘puppeteer’ metaphor is probably attributing too much agency to our intuition when it is just an acquisition machine.

We act on behalf of our genes. The conscious mind (system 2: reasoning search) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, which is biased by our reproductive strategy, which is biased by our genes.


We intuit that people – we and others – have agency. That the rider dominates the elephant. That is very hard to demonstrate, when it appears the opposite.

Developing Agency depends on the biological ability to do so, the market demand to do so, and the discipline to do so. So the elephant is a very simple machine, and the rider (consciousness) but a tool with which the elephant identifies opportunities, negotiates cooperation and executes conflict.

In other words all we think and do as JUSTIFYING the commands of the elephant. And that very, very few of us are fully human and able to transcend the elephant. And that propertarianism is a means, like stoicism, like mathematics, of transcending the elephant – or rather COMPLETING THE TRANSCENDENCE OF MAN.

All learning is continuous recursion. Epistemology and neurology are the same subject.


There is no conspiracy among peoples with genetic and cultural homogeneity, any more than there is a conspiracy between women against men, or predators against prey, or competent against incompetent.

We demonstrate differing degrees of neoteny, different moral intuitions, differing brain distributions, different endorphin distributions, and different morphology distributions for ancestral reasons.

We all participate in the unconscious persistence of genetic, class, cultural, mythological, and institutional strategies. We can enumerate the properties of different group strategies, right down to the grammar of the speech and the methods of arguments, and the distributions of cognitive biases people and peoples use (which is one of the research programs what I work on).

All of these properties and in group differences are both measurable at the individual and observable at the collective. One does not blame a dog for dragging it’s backside on the carpet. It’s a dog. One simply teaches the dog not to do so. One does not blame women for feminine cognitive biases and life preferences – they were an evolutionary necessity. One does not blame a competing group for pursuing it’s genetic interest at others expense – one simply creates norms, traditions, laws, institutions, and knowledge to prevent murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, producing pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, propaganda, systemic lying, advocating or practicing moral and ethical irreciprocity, attempts at conversion, at institutional erosion, asymmetric reproduction, invasion, conquest, war, and genocide in either short term or long term means.

Either a group can defend itself against destructive, parasitic and predatory competitors or it can’t. Groups compete. They compete by the means available to them. And groups learn to exploit every possible niche, from the most high trust, innovative, and productive, to the most low trust, parasitic, and destructive. But we cannot blame others for their immorality (free riding, parasitism and predation). We can only seek to defend ourselves against the immoral. There are no conspiracies. All our talk is just smoke and negotiation and deception on behalf of our genes. We are under the illusion that the rider drives the elephant, but the rider (our consciousness) is just a passenger on the elephant of our genes. Genes don’t conspire. They can’t.


Speech provides the illusion that the rider controls the elephant, when in fact, there are very, very, few of us whose elephants correspond to reality, and as a consequence so do our riders. There is a reason that the animals do not argue rationally – because they lack agency, and because they lack agency, they are not in fact humans

6. Transcendence



( … ) (undone)

CIRCUMPOLAR CIVILIZATION (division of trust / truth)

( … ) (undone)


Race and Group differences are attributable almost entirely to the local ability to engage in Neotonic reproduction thereby reducing the depth of physical maturity and effectively preserving youthfulness – and therefore aggression and impulsivity PLUS the ability to cull the lower classes. Europeans aggressively culled the lower classes for almost 1000 years, as did the Chinese and Japanese, both through manorialism and aggressive hanging. Between Neotonic reproduction and culling of the underclasses some groups are ‘more evolved’ than others. However, this means that almost all groups can ‘domesticate their populations and develop advanced societies if they are able to use policy to reduce underclass rates of reproduction below the replacement level.


Genetic Reservoir: because we can adapt very rapidly by reproductive selection for different environments, different political hierarchies, and different gender traits, humans can adapt to nearly any circumstance within a few generations by modifying little more than status associated with particular traits. So our current gene pools provide a deep reservoir of reproductive adaptability.


Ethnocentricity and homogenous polities under rule of law by natural law and market government will provide the optimum returns for any and every people. There is no comparison whatsoever. The only problem is reversing asymmetric reproduction between the classes which forces us into continuous devolution by regression to the mean.



A Short Course in The Western (aristocratic) Group Evolutionary Strategy
( … )

A Short Course in Group Evolutionary Strategy (cooperation/competition/war)
( … )



1. Cooperation



The way we ‘calculate’ what is ‘good’ is through voluntary exchanges: cooperation. So the fact that we have different biases provides necessary and advantageous specializations, and our principal problem then is providing ‘markets’ by which we can cooperate and ‘calculate’ group needs through constant exchanges.

2. Time


We are born with one resource to spend: TIME, and by early adulthood, we must produce more than we expend over a three week period, or we will die. We are able to produce only so many calories in that time. And, alone, barely enough to survive as a gatherer.

We are, however, capable of cooperation. We can imitate (the physical), empathize (with emotions), and sympathize (with thought). And cooperation is possible because we can judge intent (thought) reward (emotion) and means of acting (the physical)

The returns on cooperation are not additive but multiplicative – on the order a power of five to ten per person added to the division of labor. (Really. It’s that much). As Adam Smith famously argued, ten men make a few pins each but ten men dividing the labor make ten thousand pins. There is no equivalent to cooperation in a division of labor.

All our biological abilities: language, reason; our habitual abilities: manners, norms, and traditions; our institutions: money, law, banking, politics, religion, and even war, assist us in cooperating in ever larger numbers.

And through that vast system of heartless, mindless, communication, cooperation, we produce and transform infinitely more calories than we could on our own.

For this reason, we have only one form of wealth: Time, and we are not wealthier than cavemen. We have only made everything infinitely cheaper in the only currency we have to spend when we are born: time.

However, we are all born rational actors, and act morally (do not lie, cheat, steal, or free ride) and immorally (lie, cheat, steal, and free ride) as is in our best self-interest.

And the velocity and scale of cooperation is dependent upon truth-telling, adhering to promise and contract, and incentives for both reward and punishment if we fail to speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, adhere to promise and contract, and follow only those incentives that impose no costs upon the investments(costs) of others.

Mathematics (the logic of constant positional relations – or what we call ‘measurement’), Science (testifying to demonstration of the determinism of the physical world), Economics (demonstrated human behavior) and Tort (demonstrated human conflict) are the only languages of truth that we know of.

Humans evolved language to ‘deceive’, negotiate, and speak ‘morally’, not to speak truthfully, scientifically, economically, or legally. And humans evolved to cheat where they have the opportunity – and continue to do so.

So the primary difficulty in history is creating language, habits, and institutions, that assist us in truthful, voluntary, reciprocally beneficial, cooperation while suppressing untruthful, involuntary, irreciprocal impositions.

In the end, as inhuman as it may seem, we are all just calculating opportunities to work together to pursue the highest return at the lowest cost in the shortest time with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk. We are calculating, and the ‘equals sign’ in that vast set of calculations is when we cooperate.

We work together to increase the returns on time.


The opportunities in a market are limited by the requirement that we do not impose costs by externality upon the investments of others causing the loss of capital in territorial, physical, institutional, cultural, normative, informational, familial, and genetic assets.

Markets allow us to create opportunity through proximity – decreasing opportunity costs of time, and thru informational, informal, and formal institutions, and physical infrastructure as a common good – each decreasing opportunity costs of time. These market opportunities are produced as a common good. We can then serve the common good by converting opportunity into exchanges, each of which creates more than it consumes by the service of the coincidence of wants. (time savings).

We create opportunities for temporal compression through the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and seize them through the identification of a coincidence of wants, thereby converting the potential for temporal compression into the existential compression of time. And it is through this temporal compression that we, collectively, in increasing scales, constantly reduce the cost of existence, and defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity.

If you understand this you will understand all of human civilization, consists of time-saving – and the reason we have achieved what no other creatures have achieved.

We must defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and scarcity, and we do so through cooperation, and we cooperate through the incremental suppression of the imposition of costs on one another upon life, body, kin, possessions, and interests, in the form of violence, theft, fraud, falsehood, conspiracy, rents and free-riding.

We accomplish this incremental suppression by the demand for a warranty of due diligence for our products(materials), services(actions), and information(speech) and the prosecution, restitution, punishment, ostracization, or execution, of those who circumvent that Warranty of Reciprocity by production, action, or speech.

This leaves us with no option but to participate in voluntary markets under which we limit our productions, actions, and speech to that which consists of productive, fully informed (truthful), warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of cost upon the life, kin, possessions, and interests of others by externality.

This explains why time is the principal asset from which all of human existence emerges through the continuous discounting of time costs through an ever-expanding division of labor, with ever-expanding suppressions of parasitism.

  1. Productivity (define)

( … )

  1. Division of Labor

(Division of Labor)


Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Perception Knowledge Labor and Advocacy: The difference between the feminine (short term), libertarian (medium term) and conservative (long term) moral biases constitutes an inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.



Gender       Feminine       Ascendant    Masculine

Strategy     Expenses       Income       Assets

Reproduction Dysgenic       Pragmatic    Eugenic

Morality     Care-Taking    Freedom      Loyalty

Coercion     Undermining    Remuneration Violence

Property     Collective     Individual   Hierarchical 

Politics     Socialist      Libertarian  Authoritarian

Ability      Sex(affection) Cunning      Strength


5. Rationality


Man Is Rational – Period.

1 – Men are rational. Period.
2 – Men can rationally choose morality or immorality or evil. Period.
3 – Morality consist of reciprocity. Period.
4 – Reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality – period.
5 – The test of reciprocity is any change in property in toto (demonstrated property) Period.
6 – The purpose of reciprocity is the demand for restitution as a means of preventing retaliation cycles.
7 – The Purpose of preventing retaliation cycles, is to preserve the value of cooperation.
8 – The incremental suppression of retaliation cycles produces lower risk and higher experimental velocity, (that we call ‘trust’), thereby increasing the rate of returns on cooperation.

Are Men Not Moral?

Men are merely rational. We are capable of moral (cooperative) and immoral (parasitic), and evil (predatory) behaviors. We demonstrate that we are capable of moral, immoral, and evil behaviors.

We choose good most often because it is rational. A few of us choose not good because it is rational – fairly often. A few of us choose evil – because it is rational given their emotional condition. We always manage our physical, emotional, and intellectual(frustration) budgets, and we

We educate our young and each other in order to preserve the utility of cooperation for them, for ourselves, and the group, and to prevent retaliation for them, ourselves, and the group.

The fact of the matter is that if you are strong, in the short term predation is most rewarding, at the cost of future retaliation. if you are not weak, In the medium-term cooperation is most rewarding. In the long term, if you are weak, parasitism is most rewarding.

And this is what we see: a predatory upper class, a productive middle class, and a parasitic underclass.

There are no possible perpetual motion machines, including those of a polity, economy, and kin group.

We must always defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, despite that some of us are strong and competent, some of us not weak but competent, and some of us weak and incompetent.

We are, like all nature, bound by the basic laws of the universe, and in particular, the laws of thermodynamics. All civilization is merely an attempt to cooperate at larger and larger scales, by trading off near pleasures, for future returns.

The Consequence of Rational Action

All men are rational actors – neither moral nor immoral, but rational. We achieve the good by eliminating the utility of choosing the bad. We eliminate the utility of choosing the bad by the promise of violence for violations of reciprocity. We test for the violation of reciprocity by demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of negative-externality. We call this test of reciprocity Natural Law. We can only test this Natural Law by the use of independent judges and juries to discover violations of it by sympathetic testing. We can perform that sympathetic testing when observing testimony. We can sympathetically test from testimony because our ability to cooperate was made possible by an ability to sympathize with intent. By sympathizing with intent, we can discover malincentives and malintentions. We can then judge malincentives and malintentions, and record those judgments for future use in what we call the ‘common law.’. But for this system to work at all, those who testify, the jury, and the judges must give higher priority to the commons than to their self, kin, or organizational interests. And so they themselves must be subject to the same demand for reciprocity as those that they adjudicate. This is the secret to western civilization: the truthfulness of warrior cult spread across all men, via service in militia and army.

The Contract of Aristocratic Cooperation

We prefer to cooperate morally – meaning beneficially – with you.

If we cannot cooperate beneficially with you on fully moral terms – meaning without parasitism, then we have only four choices:

1) Pay the cost of your parasitism and suffer the consequences, in exchange for avoiding the cost of defending against your parasitism.

2) Boycott you and bearing the costs of boycotting you in exchange for avoiding the cost of transforming you into a moral individual or group.

3) Colonize you and bear the cost of evolving you, in exchange for creating a valued member of mankind.

4) Conquering you and bearing the cost of exterminating you in exchange for freedom from your parasitism.

So, you have a choice: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, constrained to externalities under the same conditions.

Or we will eventually colonize and reform you, or conquer and exterminate you.

You may have the ambition of mere survival. Our ambition is to make mankind moral. For it is only in moral mankind that the evil and immoral are exterminated forever.

6. Immorality



4 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.

3 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism without which parasitism creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportion­ate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.

5 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence promises of interpersonal violence, use of interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracisation from cooperation, organized ostracisation via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.



7. Reciprocity 


The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff”. The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest instead, conveniently assumed as the starting point – rather than the possibility of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume we start with the given of cooperation then this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation. And non-cooperation valued higher than predation. Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? Certainly it is not rational to tolerate violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin. Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )). The strong preserve their choices, the middle deny them, and the bottom shame against both – and seek formal institutions of shaming to assist them: public intellectuals and priests.”

The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)

Thou shalt not, by display, word, deed, absence of display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly(by externality), where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy displays, words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

What is Natural Law?

A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.

What do you mean by ethics?

The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.

What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?



In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.

In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.”—


Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.

Fully understanding this law may also require:

1) The knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities that can be seized, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.

2) The definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against and have demonstrated an interest.

3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.

4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.

If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).

This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.


If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others.

If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions.

If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and

If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.


We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual.

We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups.

We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking.

Natural Law is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to.

It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional.

And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science.

And there is only one of them: reciprocity.


Organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding

1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.

2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.

3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.

4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution of cooperation by severe policing of violators (cheaters).

5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).

6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.

7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights“.

8) Community members (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.

9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)

10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.

11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for either tyranny or redistribution.

The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.

Only the West succeeded in developing deflationary truth (Reporting).

And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law. Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. This emperor is naked also. Truth is enough to rescue the west.


History says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level.

And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression.

The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable.

The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct?

To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization?

This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational.

The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence.

As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action.


The state is the result of organized suppression of private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

But the problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.


To take it even further, we can suppress demographic parasitism:

1 – Incremental Suppression. (the common law of torts)

2 – Reproductive limitation. (Soft or hard eugenics)

3 – Physical Removal (Deportation or imprisonment)

4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging).

5 – Culling (Casualties).


Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. But Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.


What do we mean by Law?

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence

Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World

The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law

The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law

Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property

(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,

The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights

(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)

21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)


The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.

In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.


DEFINITION: LAW (‘necessary’, ‘inescapable’, or ‘unavoidable’).

1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government).

2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,

3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law)

4 – Law (Testimonial): A statement of perpetual continuity discovered by formal grammar and dimensional testing.

5 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).

6 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.

7 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).

8 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.

Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, un-enforceable, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure


1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and;

2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and;

3) Testimonial Laws (laws of information);

… consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.


The problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.


Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech about any given subject.

Science as we understand it does not currently ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.


Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy in toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

Law can now be scientifically constructed. Truth, science, law, morality are now identical. All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.


Liberal(feminine and socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.

The conservative(masculine and aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.

What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.

Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.

The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.

The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.

1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.

2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.

3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.

4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.

5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.

6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.

7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.

Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.


Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.

1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)

In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.

In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.

2) The Chinese / Russian (Conquerors)

The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.

The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the

3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (Enfranchisers)

The forest-and-rivers of the European plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.

In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.

4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)

In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.

We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.

We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.


1 – The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) (innovative, expansionary)

2 – The Caste System (which is evolving in South America) (Static, Static)

3 – The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) (Static, expansionary)

4 – The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism in all its forms) (Parasitic, Regressive, Expansionary)

In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.

Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.

There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.

This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.

Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.

And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.

8. Morality


Define Morality

Disambiguate Morality

Morality = Rules of cooperation

Positive morality

( … )

Negative morality

( … )


There exists only one universal moral law of sentient beings: Reciprocity. And it has been recorded since the dawn of writing in both via-positiva form as the golden rule, and in via-negativa form as the silver rule.

What Is Reciprocity? 

The Silver Rule (Presumption of Inequality)

Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.


The Golden Rule (Presumption of Equality)

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

As determined by;

Either any change, or the total change, in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

The One Moral Law

The one law of Reciprocity that we call Natural Law, is this:

“The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.”

So all displays, words, and deeds that are not immoral, are either amoral (not immoral) or moral (productive). 

This doesn’t answer the question, what is a good life rather than one that is not immoral.  That answer is either Aryan (acheviment, excellence), Pagan (to die a good death), Heathen (to live in harmony with nature) or christian (to do good works of charity).

Reciprocity (Full Version)

The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups).

“Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.”
There is no ideal. There are no ideals.
There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.

Full Version of Reciprocity

Limiting our display word and deed to:
Fully informed (truthful and complete);
… – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy.
Productive and;
Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon);
– The Demonstrated interests of Others ;
– Either directly or indirectly (by externality)
– And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability;
… – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection;
… – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation;
– Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles,
– And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

Let’s Explain Each of Those Criteria

( … )

Test of Reciprocity As Morality

Try To Falsify:

(a) Goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected.
(b) Morality refers to reciprocity.
(c) Reciprocity a necessity of the physical universe.
(d) The human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs).
(e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us.
(f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision.
(g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral.
(h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality.

All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to succeed in falsifying them.

The Three Moral Biases

Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory:

1) Disgust: Sanctity/Degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

2) Opportunity: Liberty/Oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

3) EmpathyCare/Harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Morality: Fairness/Cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

4) Loyalty: Loyalty/Betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

5) Hierarchy: Authority/Subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

As Rights to Demonstrated Interests

Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as demonstrated individual interests:

1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)
2. Proportionality/Cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)
3. Liberty/Oppression characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)

And three others can be expressed as demonstrated community interests covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Note that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe.

As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction).

Which Will Also Show up In Political Biases

Feminine Consumptive  (left, consumptive), Ascendant Male Productive (libertarian), and Dominant or Established Male Capitalizing (right, conservative)

But We Are Frequently Immoral

Unfortunately, while the via-negativa version is more accurate and less open to misinterpretation, the via-Positiva is more popular for the simple reason that it is more open to intentional misinterpretation – as a POSITIVE demand for behavior rather than a NEGATIVE demand that we eschew behavior.

And men and women are natural deceivers in pursuit of discounts on their acquisitions. So we see people claim that it is moral to impose costs upon others. We see this false claim in (a) demand for sacrifice rather than limiting demand to non-imposition upon others. (b) demand for positive freedoms that impose costs upon others, rather than negative freedoms that prevent us from imposing costs upon others. (c) demand for ‘human rights’ the last few of which impose costs upon others, rather than Natural Rights, which demand we impose no costs upon others.

And via negativa prohibition on the imposition of costs, is something all can do, while demand for the imposition of costs upon others is not something we can all do, nor can we pay such demands, nor is it clear that by paying such demand we do other than increase the immorality of such demands.

So the one universal moral law of sentient beings is the via-Negativa form of do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, and the via-Positiva form is open to use by fraudulent pretense. 

The Seen and Unseen

Now, enter the seen and unseen: It turns out that the optimum group strategy for any and every polity, is to exhaust opportunity for cooperation as a cost of converting immoral people into moral people – but only on an interpersonal, not political basis. So if we use government charity or professional charities we simply increase immoral behavior in the government, in the charity, and in the polity – because subsidy of immorality always serves to increase immorality (the chief means of immorality is reproduction of children one cannot afford, and entrapping others in the moral hazard of supporting your children, rather than additional children of their own.)

Christian Forgiveness and The Natural Law of Torts

This is the economic strategy of via-positiva Christian forgiveness, and via-negativa of Aristocratic (Militia) Law of Tort. The vast crimes of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) in creating the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of the great ancient civilizations, aside, the economic reality is that interpersonal responsibility for the conversion of others from immoral to moral actors, and resorting to legal (communal) prosecution when it fails, is the reason for Christianity’s spread of wealth wherever it goes.

While western man evolved individual Sovereignty, the Jury, Thang, and Senate, the independent Empirical Judiciary, the independent common law of torts, using the natural law of reciprocity, that strategy is maximized, by the same personal responsibility for one’s behavior, the domestication of one’s children, domesticating the underclasses, and domesticating the foreigners lacking long traditions in individual Sovereignty, Individual responsibility, Natural Law by Exhaustive Forgiveness but not exhaustive tolerance. And then resorting to the commons to punish those who cannot adapt to that moral standard.


Morals Are Not Relative but Reflect Genetic Distance

We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.


Why Does Reciprocity Serve as Natural Law?

Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.  That’s what the words moral and ethical mean: “Reciprocity”.

Economics of Life in a Physical Universe

Because We are biased for pro-sociality and morality because it is always and everywhere in our interest to both (a) reduce conflict and enemies, (b) cooperate on production, (c) generate incentives for future cooperation.

There is no caloric efficiency available to life forms like cooperation in a division of labor under reciprocity (non-parasitism) and proportionality (preservation of incentive not to defect)





9. Tolerance



Investment: Forbearance

The distinction between tolerance and forbearance.

TOLERANCE: allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs.
– It is a passive state.
– No agency.

FORBEARANCE: intentionally taking responsibility for a cost to allow someone else not to. (example: my children, my disabled kin, my employee that has not matured fully yet).
– It is an active state.
– Allows agency.


—“The centre holds onto tolerance because tolerance is passive. Those lacking agency can participate in tolerance while ignoring limits, because they don’t have the agency to enforce limits, and by ignoring limits they can stay in denial of their lack of agency. Forbearance includes tolerance AND limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), AND active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” —- @[655376421:2048:Bill Joslin]


—-“I use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs. It is a passive state. No agency. …. I use Forbearance to mean I intentionally take responsibility for the cost to allow someone else not to (ex. my children, my disabled kin, my employee that has not matured fully yet). It is an active state. Allows agency.”— @[1013719133:2048:Luke Weinhagen]


10. Virtues


Capitalization: Virtues


Signaling: Manners

Negative manners, ethics, morals, and law are universal. Positive manners, ethics, and morals are agency and therefore class dependent. We had it right until Christianity imposed a universalist slave monopoly. Just as the Ashkenazi have tried through marxism, libertarianism, and neo-conservatism to impose a universalist monopoly of the working, trading, and ruling classes.



1) Reciprocity is demonstrably universal by rationally, logically, and empirically. This is a via-negativa prohibition.
2) The criteria for reciprocity in any given condition varies given the portfolio of existing traditional, cultural, normative, ethical, moral, legal and institutional changes.
3) Within these portfolios all actions are decidable (and are decided) by reciprocity.
4) As such as with laws, a set of norms, matters, ethics, morals evolve as rules of thumb covering the majority of cases and questions.
5) Individuals and groups can be educated in the method of determining reciprocity within these local portfolios as well as any other portfolio they can gain sufficient general knowledge of to explain.
6) Because we begin in ignorance, and grow and learn more about the world we first imitate simple rules, come to understand general rules, and eventually in later age, come to undrestand outcomes and handle exceptions.
7) And we increasingly rely on adversarial competition in markets to test our ideas, and adversarial competition before more knowledgable ‘judges and juries’ for resolution of differences (errors, biases, deceits).
8) Some portfolios evolve to diverge from reciprocity. This does not alter the demand for reciprocity. It generates demand for the rebalancing of the portfolio so that it consist of a collection of interdependent demands for reciprocity rather than irreciprocity.

Some portfolios are temporally disadvantageous but cumulatively advantageous, (western) some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively stagnating (east asian) and some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively disastrous and (jewish), some are temporally advantageous and cumulatively catastrophic (muslim).

Some create capital rapidly and expand capital externally (european). Some create limited capital slowly and expand capital externally (chinese). Some create capital at the expense of others (jewish). Some consume capital at the expense of others (muslim).

Justificationism was false. Falsificationism was only half of the story. It’s western Adversarialism that discovered and maintained truth in all walks of life.

There is a universal via negativa. Anything that is not irreciprocal within the local portfolio of manners, ethics morals, norms, laws, traditions is ethical and moral.

When conflicts occur across portfolios they are easily decided by reciprocity independent of the local portfolios of manners, ethics morals norms laws traditions.

Virtues consist of cultivating knowledge and habits that (a) suppress impulse the exports costs in favor of excellence (bearing costs), (a) minimize chances of irreciprocity, (b) bias our cost neutral decisions to the benefit the commons rather than the self.

As such, just as some virtues are true and false to their pretense, some are true and false in combination with others.

And we can only test whether virtues are true by adversarialism: competition.

Worse, virtue signaling in and over itself is the most hyper consumptive of false virtues.




Weights and Measures



( … )


( … )


( … )


( … )


( … )


( … )

Group Strategy


Group Strategies

( … )

Well-Sitting – Resource Curse

( … )

Production (hinduism, christendom, japan, china)

( … )

Parasitism (organized crime, gypsies, everywhere)

( … )

Raiding (steppe, desert, russia)

( … )

Human Domestication and Farming ( europeanism, han-ism)

( … )

Conquest and Consumption  (islam, globalism, semitism)

( … )

Undermining and destruction (judaism, communism)

( … )


  1. Variation

( … )

  1. Compatibility

( … )

  1. Competition

( … )

  1. Sortition

( … )

  1. Vertical Class

Horizontal Class – Elites


Horizontal or Reproductive and Influence Class

Reproductive class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. There is a competition between the classes, as there is a competition between all living organisms – and there must be for evolution continue and the species to persist. The competition between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of whether an action is eugenic or dysgenic provides us with complete moral decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind. There are no moral dilemmas. There are no morally undecidable questions.



Horizontal Classes


Definition of Horizontal Class: Reproductive Strategy


Three Dominance Hierarchies

What dominance hierarchies (classes) can man climb?

  1. Physical (force)
  2. Economic (exchange)
  3. Gossip (insurance, inclusion, exclusion)

We can climb all three of them – and we do. If we can.


Three Elite Classes

( … )

1) The Military
2) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics.
3) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war

4) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury.
5. Those who Work



And a persuasive argument can consist of one or more of these strategies, often in great complexity.

Force/Punishment/Limits < Exchange > Demand/Inclusion/Exclusion

It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives.


Or, more romantically:

—“Human life can for convenience be divided into four major spheres, the pursuit of power (politics), the pursuit of wealth (economics), the pursuit of [mindfulness] salvation and meaning (religion), the pursuit of social and sexual warmth (kinship).”— McFarlane

People give priority one or more different weighted combinations, or perhaps ‘chordic’ representations of these strategies. They do so out of habit, and class inclination, just as they follow religious and class sentiments due to their upbringing.

People who belong to institutions have different capacities for adopting these strategies. Force requires discipline and long Time Bias. Remuneration requires cunning and invention. Moral claims require loyalty to consensus, and absorption of, and therefore payment of, opportunity costs. Different social classes have different time biases and consist of people with different time preferences, requiring different types of discipline under different social and economic conditions. ie: it is easier to have a long time preference if one is genetically disposed to better impulse control, and lives in greater security. It is easier to have a short time preference if one is more persuaded by impulses, less disciplined, and in an environment of scarcity.

Under markets, the social classes are organized by intelligence (otherwise by violence, or corruption, or propaganda and deceit). Intelligence is the ability to absorb content in real-time, to learn abstractions in time, and to permute those abstractions in application to problems in real-time. Intelligence regresses toward the mean over generations. Therefore class membership is an indicator of the likelihood of class mobility, and upper-class position is difficult to maintain. While we use the word ‘middle class’, and most people in the west live middle-class lifestyles, the middle class means possessing disposable income and participating in the market. Therefore the majority of citizens are in the upper proletariat and lower-middle classes, which we call the working, white-collar working and craftsman classes.

There are different costs to these institutions: Force is extremely expensive. Creating non-corruption, and order (some network of property definitions and their means of transfer). Property is a term for a scarce good that must be used, consumed or transformed in the process of production, even if that process is human sustenance. Remunerative institutions require the complex task of concentrating capital then maintaining it in a constantly changing kaleidic and competitive environment. Moral claims require constant advocacy, verbal skill, maintenance of numerous relationships, and constant payment of opportunity costs.

Social classes have different access to each of these forms of coercion. Those in the institutional class, or upper class, have access to force in the form of policy and law. Those in the capitalist class, or middle, have access to capital: money, and market institutions.

In each strategy, people form elites and organizations for utilizing those strategies. The elites create philosophical frameworks. Each of these frameworks consists of moral claims, and institutional means of perpetuating those claims, and the social benefits of adopting those claims.

Each of these institutions is open to corruption, which is the privatization of opportunity and reward, for personal consumption at group expense. Corruption is a fraud.

Each of these strategies, under the organizations, institutions, and elites, compete against other strategies, organizations, and elites, and each attempts to use its own organizations to obtain discounts against other organizations.

This competition is analogous to the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, if more complicated: each group can successfully compete against one another under most circumstances but can defeat and be defeated by some other combination of forces.

The human mind is comfortable with identity and causality. It can with practice, understand a one-dimensional causal spectrum. It can, with effort, understand two dimensions of causality. It can with more effort to understand three dimensions of a causal spectrum.

Human emotions for example, consist of probably no more than three stimuli: Dominance-Submission, Pleasure, and Activation. And that all human emotions, in their seemingly infinite variety can be described as using these three axes of stimuli. Likewise, human social behavior consists of three different forms of coercion, in some combination, and this set of axes leads to seemingly infinite variety.

But it only seems infinite. At it’s base, there are only three forms of social organization. These three forms can be combined, as they are in the majority of the population in some manner or another. Or they can be used as one of three specializations, each of which attempts to play rock, paper, scissors, with the other two.

All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives.

















  1. Influence (Elites)


Definition of the spectrum of influence.

|INFLUENCE| Ignorance > Awareness > Influence (Speech) > Incentive (Exchange) > Coercion (Force) > Enserfment (Power)

  1. One can Influence
    Alter the probability of an individual or group’s decisions while preserving choice.
  2. One can Incentivize
    Alter the probability of an individual or group’s decisions while preserving some choice
  3. One can Coerce
    Alter the probability of an individual or group’s decisions while limiting choice.
  4. One can Exercise Power
    Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity while eliminating choice.

Three Weapons of Influence

There are three means of influencing groups of people with institutions. (Johnson)

1) Force, or the threat of force (Masculine Strategy)
A person has a VIOLENCE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions.

Tool: Physical Coercion
Benefit: Avoidance Benefit
Strategic use: Rapid but expensive.
“Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”

Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians)

LimitsVia-Negativa: Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians)

2) Remuneration or payment (Neutral or Market Strategy)
A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange.

Tool: Remunerative Coercion
Benefit: Material
Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.

Economic Power
(people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).

PossibilitiesVia-Practica: Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation)

3) Moral claims (collective goods) – (Feminine Strategy)
A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation.

Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion
Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit
Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive.
“Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”

Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)

WantsVia-Positiva: Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)


Evolution of Institutions of Coercion

So given that there are only three methods of coercion available to us:

  1. UNDERMINING: feminine gossip, rallying, and shaming(exclusion from opportunity).
  2. REMUNERATION: libertarian trade, and
  3. FORCE: Masculine force

There are only six interpersonal actions available to us:

  1. Predation(Force, Theft, Fraud) >
    1. Force (Coercion) >
  2. Remuneration (Trade) >
    1. Boycotting (Boycott/Ignore) >
  3. Undermining: Inclusion in opportunity (Ostracization) >
    1. Flight(Separation)

Evolution of Social Orders

There are three existing and one emerging method of institutional coercion:

Religion (Inclusion / Exclusion) > Law (Protection / Punishment) > Credit (Consumption / Deprivation) > Surveillance – Digital Reputation (inclusion / exclusion from opportunity)

    Religion evolved to provide understanding of the word, virtues to imitate, and general prohibitions, across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, so that people could cooperate more easily and retaliate (feud) less frequently.
    Weapon: Ostracization (death sentence)
    Records: memory of locals.
    Institutions: Church, Academy, School, Family, Individual
  2. LAW
    Law evolved to standardize punishments across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, to keep the peace, preserve productivity, preserve taxation, and legitimize (provide value by) rule.
    Weapon: violence, deprivation
    Records: written ledgers of crimes and punishments.
    Institutions: Military, Judiciary, Sheriff/Esquires, Militia, Men
    Credit rule evolved to increase productivity by the promise of consumption in the present, such that the primary form of social punishment was loss of consumption, status, and signaling.
    Weapon: deprivation of consumption, status, and signaling.
    Records: written and electronic records of creditworthiness.
    Institutions: Government, Treasury, Banking, Business, Technology, Labor
  4. SURVEILLANCE (Inclusion / Exclusion)
    Weapon: deprivation of opportunities for cooperation.
    Records: digital record and scores of your ‘desirability’ for cooperation.
    Institutions: Combining all of the above plus surveillance.



  1. Horizontal Classes



Definition of Class: Value


Horizontal and Vertical Classes

—“Curt, I’d like to ask about your break down of class. It seems based on IQ and income level is that a correct assessment?”—

Um… well, I use genetic, social, occupational, and economic classes – even though they overlap a great deal as horizontal classes.

And I use the three specializations in means of coercion as vertical classes.

But since there is such a high correlation between genetic classes and all other horizontal classes, unless I say otherwise, I am generally referring to genetic classes.

And genetic class refers to a portfolio of fitnesses that include IQ as well as personality, morphology, and health.

So with that qualification, I think I would say that just as IQ a high predictor in life, it is not the only predictor. But for purpose of general argument it is as good a rule of thumb as any other.


Vertical or Ability and Value Classes

For all intents and purposes, with wide individual variation, physical attractiveness (which yes, is a universal), physical fitness, General Intelligence, and personality, serve as a rough indicator of class. For all intents and purposes, intelligence serves as a personality trait – and perhaps the dominant personality trait. For all intents and purposes, personality and physique require exercise in order to produce individual fitness. (This being the primary failure of the 20th century – personality training.)


Reproductive Classes

Elite – Extremely desirable
Upper – Desirable throughout life.
Middle – Desirable through fertility,
Upper Lower – Desirable during peak fertility.
Lower – Desirable only as ‘settling’ (last resort)
Lowest – Undesirable


Social Classes

( status, opportunity )


Economic Classes

( ability economy, siezure )



The Functions of The Economic Classes

Upper (Asset Capital – Power)
Tool of Coercion: Force – Military, Law, Sheriff

1) Upper – Production of Order (sovereignty)
Rule Economy (Aristocracy Profit from the Organization of Labor+K)

Middle (Knowledge Capital)
Tool of Coercion: Remuneration – Organization, Distribution and Trade

2) Upper Middle – Organization of Production (liberty)
Capitalism ( Organization of Labor+Knowledge )

3) Middle – Organization of Transformation (freedom)
Market Economy ( Voluntarily Organized Labor+K)

4) Lower Middle (working) Transformation (participation)
Mixed Economy ( Voluntary + Involuntarily Organized Labor+K)

Lower (Physical Capital)
Tool of Coercion: Gossip (resistance) – Production, Dist. and Trade

5) Lower (working) Labor (participation)
Command Economy ( Lower – Involuntarily Organized Labor+K)

Dependent (No Capital)

6) Dependent – Production of Generations (pos. Freedom)
Dependent Economy (Dependents – Redistributions from Labor+K)


The Middle Class

The common definition is:

—”the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”—

I would use:

***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”***

Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it.

The British and American Systems
The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive.

We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified.

The British and American Class Models

British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states)

British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money)
For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation.

British Elite – American Upper Middle Class
(in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.)
Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law, and medicine are more traditional upper-middle-class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class.

British Established middle class – American Middle Class
Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26]

British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class
The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27]

British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class
New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27]

British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class
The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27]

British Emergent service sector – American lower working class
The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27]

British Precariat – American upper proletarian class
The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers.

British ???? – American Lower proletarian class
British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class.


The Four Middle Classes Criteria

  1. Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable)
  2. Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions)
  3. Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business)
  4. Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner)

To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations).

So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in.

American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically.

the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits.


Class Rotation

(… individual rotation vs family and clan rotation)

(… the difficulty in defeating the red queen)


–“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”–


–“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part
by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”–


1) First, it means the world is a much fairer place than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the main source of economic success.

2) Second, it suggests that the large investment made by the upper classes in the care and raising of their children is of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility: the wealthy Manhattan attorneys who hire coaches for their toddlers to ensure placement in elite kindergartens cannot prevent the eventual regression of their descendants to the mean.

3) Third, government interventions to increase social mobility are unlikely to have much impact unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups.

4) Fourth, emphasis on racial, ethnic, and religious differences allows persistent social stratification through the barriers they create to this intermarriage. In order for a society to increase social mobility over the long run, it must achieve the cultural homogeneity that maximizes intermarriage rates between social groups.

Justification. Dunning Kreuger. Envy. Reproductive Strategy. All guarantee that despite the fact his is true, it is in the lower majority’s interests to deny it. Unless we pay them well to have but one child, and punish them severely for having more. Personally I think that’s a pretty good deal. I’d have just one child if someone would pay me 10-20K a year for it, and would take it away if I had more.

I don’t advocate redistribution for the purpose of equality. I advocate it for the purpose of suppressing breeding, and paying people to assist in the construction of property rights and the commons that facilitates the voluntary organization of production

6. Social Orders

Social Orders


Gender       Masculine     Ascendant    Feminine

Strategy     Assets        Income       Expenses

Reproduction Eugenic       Pragmatic    Dysgenic

Morality     Loyalty       Freedom      Care-Taking

Coercion     Violence      Remuneration Undermining

Property     Hierarchical  Individual   Collective

Politics     Authoritarian Libertarian  Socialist 

Ability      Strength      Cunning      Sex(affection)


Class Liberties

So, as far as I know, you are always a slave as long as you are dependent upon other people’s efforts to survive.

1 – Undomesticated animal
2 – Slave (no rights)
3 – Serf (rights to some of the proceeds of labor)
4 – Freman/Employee (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons) – Rule of Law
5 – Citizen/Manager ( rights to property, rights to proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility for the organization of others in their production ) –
6 – Senator/Investor (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility to determine the utilization of scarce resources among various managers )
7 – Prince/Ruler (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility to create some combination of voluntary or involuntary organizations of defense, production, distribution, and trade, that make investment, management, employment, serfdom, slavery possible.


Class Demand for Different Economics


Just as in physical science, information is the model by which we fallible humans least inaccurately carry on a discourse and achieve understanding. Accuracy matters not just because convenience and tradition introduce errors, but because these errors are externalized to the rest of the population.

Perhaps more importantly, as economists, we are more accountable for the externalities produced by our use of ‘terms of convenience’ than are thinkers in other fields.

For example, the Cantorian fallacy of multiple infinities rather than ‘the rate at which we pair off positional numbers’ has led to intellectual externalities in popular culture if not philosophy and physics departments as well. Just as very few of those entities that mathematicians refer to exist as numbers, but instead exist only as functions. Just as economists refer to the movement of the curve rather than the behavior of individuals resulting in a change in an aggregate measure. These are habituations but they are unscientific terms in that they fail the test of existence unless stated operationally. And that is the problem with much discourse in economics.


1) Natural : evolutionarily extant deterministic patterns absent the intentional or accidental intervention of man, and/or outlier events such as shocks. –”the natural rate of interest refers to the amount that would balance supply and demand for money (or maybe investment) in the evenly rotating economy.”–

2) Austrian: the program whose members search for improvements in institutions of cooperation within the voluntary organization of production, distribution and trade through improvements in information, improving the ability of actors to plan. Purpose: improve symmetry of information.
(Long term – Conservatism – K-selection – Capital – Aristocracy – Force/Law – Virtue Ethics )

3) Chicago(Freshwater): the program whose members search for rules by which to extend non-discretionary rule of law by incorporating economic policy, such that interference via disinformation in the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade is procedural and non-discretionary, preserving the ability of actors to plan. Purpose: repair asymmetries of information.
(Medium-term – Liberalism – “Production-Selection” – Productivity – Bourgeoise – Exchange/Trade – Rule Ethics)

4) Keynesian(Saltwater): the program which seeks the maximum discretionary limits of disinformation insertable into in institutions of cooperation within the voluntary organization of production, to accelerate consumption without dis-incentivizing consumption and production. Purpose: produce misinformation as an incentive to produce and consume.
(Short Term – Progressivism – r-selection – Consumption – Working Classes – Gossip-Rally-Shame/Boycott – Outcome Ethics)

5) Socialist: the program which seeks to circumvent the volatility and meritocracy of the voluntary organization of cooperation by providing information and institutions necessary for the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade. Purpose: Eliminate the individual need for information and decision.
(Authoritarian – dysgenic selection – Proletarian Class – Revolt – non-ethical).

This spectrum from NATURAL to SOCIALIST, constructed by changes in discretionary information, provides limits, and therefore greater tests of necessary truth content than any analysis of the meaning individual terms.

Class Demand For Different Economies

—“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley

No it just means that the working and middle class and upper-middle-class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle-class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).

So that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the Keynesian and new Keynesian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes.

The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry-picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle-class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper-class market.

So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes.

I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle-class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle-class economy possible.

Class Demand For Different Government, Legislation, and Law

( … )

Classes and White Markets vs Black Markets

( … )

7. Social Strategy ( monopoly -> trifuctionalism )

( … )

5. Generational Differences

( … )



( … )

Familial (and kinship)

( … )






Political Organization


The Three Coercive Technologies.

1) Force:
Tool: Physical Coercion
Benefit: Avoidance Benefit
Strategic use: Rapid but expensive.
“Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”

2) Words:
Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion
Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit
Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive.
“Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”

3) Exchange: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit –
Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.


Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling.

There are only three forms of power possible:

1) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians)
2) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).
3) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)

It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

Optimum Function

1) LimitsVia-Negativa: Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians)
2) PossibilitiesVia-Practica: Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).
3) WantsVia-Positiva: Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)

( … )

The Three Orders: Kin, Cult, State

I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent-seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents.

The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:

(1) kin and law
(2) cult and religion, or
(3) state and corporatism;

… depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others?

And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both the desire for the construct, and in the expression of that desire for the construct as a will to power.

I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in the bias of decidability? for the same reason: Austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.

If it isn’t clear: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means.

We have been at war. We are at war.

Time to win the war.


Kin, Class, Caste: Models And Functions

1. Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation-states),
2. Class System (informal institution – markets) or
3. Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws),

Systems exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by East Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is.

We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability.

kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse.

Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well, it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders.

All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and thereby create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce with resources at hand. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper.

There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning.

The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses.

Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.

Tools of Rule

    Weapon: Ostracization (death sentence)
    Records: Memory of Locals
    Religion evolved to provide understanding of the word, virtues to imitate, and general prohibitions, across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, so that people could cooperate more easily and retaliate (feud) less frequently.
    Weapon: ostracization (deprivation from opportunity)
    Records: memory of locals, religious registries and ceremonies.
  3. LAW
    Law evolved to standardize punishments across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, to keep the peace, preserve productivity, preserve taxation, and legitimize (provide value by) rule.
    Weapon: violence, deprivation
    Records: written ledgers of crimes and punishments.
    Credit rule evolved to increase productivity by the promise of consumption in the present, such that the primary form of social punishment was loss of consumption, status, and signaling.
    Weapon: deprivation of consumption, status, and signaling.
    Records: written and electronic records of creditworthiness.

Means of Rule


Authoritarian Rule (war – Evolution )
Fascism (Authoritarianism) is the means by which we use the violence of the state to organize the entire society to solve a small, urgent, problem, of war, economic war, religious war, demographic war, or rapid economic transformation.

Minority Rule ( Evolution )
Oligarchy is the means by which we use the violence of the state to domesticate the unruly for profit, until they are no longer sufficiently unruly that they can obtain rule of law.

Rule of Law (reciprocity-Peak)
Rule of law is the means by which we use the promise of violence of the state to force trades between the classes so that everyone achieves the best available without violating reciprocity (cooperation).

Majority Rule (devolution)
Majority Rule (Democracy, Republican Democracy) is the means by which the majority of women and the underclass can use the violence of the state to extract rents from the productive classes who would otherwise invest them in long term monumental, institutional, genetic, and normative returns.

Minority Rule

To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this:

1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators.

2) The longer-term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office.

3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce the cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.)

4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class).

5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control)

So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.)

Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability.

Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors.





Political Biases

What do conservatives, liberals, and libertarians believe is the hidden agenda of the other two political philosophies?

Conservatives believe in a meritocratic hierarchical society where a) there are as few ‘cheaters’ living off the efforts of others as is posible, b) that enfranchisement should be earned, c) that government should resolve conflicts not direct society d) that civic duties should be preferred to administrative bureaucracies. e) They believe a good society can best be created by norms, rather than laws. f) They view all property as individual, but wich we must put to collective ends. Jonathan Haidt has shown that conservatives treat all six moral codes equally. (liberty, care-taking, hierarchy, loyalty, purity, fairness)

Libertarians believe in a meritocratic non hierarchical society where there are as few cheaters as possible living off the efforts of others and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should be limited to resolving conflicts over property. They believe civic virtues will emerge from this society, and the government bureaucracy (correctly) is the source of all bad government, so that privatization should be used rather than public bureaucracy, whenever possible.

Progressives (Liberals)
Progressives believe in an egalitarian non hierarchical society where people produce what they can and that we redistribute from one another to one another as needed by way of the government. They believe all property is community property and that individuals are just temporary stewards of property in order to achieve what is best for the common good. They believe civic egalitarianism is best achieved through expansionary government that intervenes wherever possible in order to ensure equality of ends and means. Jonathan Haidt has shown that progressives (liberals) care only about two of the moral codes, and ignore the other four: fairness and care-taking.

It’s Gender
What may not be obvious to the average person is that these three groups represent a spectrum that expresses the different reproductive strategies of the genders, and that liberals on one end and conservatives on the other each skew toward gender lines. In fact, if women were not to vote, we would never have had a progressive government in our history. The female reproductive strategy is to give her child every opportunity to rise above his abilities. The male reproductive strategy is to ensure the competitiveness of the group by promoting the strongest. While these are generalizations, when we are talking about genders we are in fact, making very broad generalizations. And the data supports those generalizations.

Our Institutions Could Not Tolerate The Change
Our political sentiments are largely inherited, largely a function of gender and class. Or political system was invented when the church was the authority of all moral teaching, when our voting classes were all some version of protestants, when the state was restricted to the resolution of disputes. And when we were all small business people (farmers and shopkeepers) and so we were all market participants and there were very few ‘leeches’ in the system. The political system was originally structured by social class with the senate appointed from influential people, the house elected from business people (land owners) and the proletariat was uneducated if not illiterate. Our constitution was designed to limit the government to resolution of conflicts and to avoid prescription.

And that political system did not survive the Louisiana purchase, the civil war, the inclusion of women, and the rapid immigration of non-protestants into the country as a means of filling the newly acquired continent, and as new citizens, their inclusion into the voting pool. The industrial revolution and the world wars that threw England’s empire into our hands was an opportunity for profit that we could not pass up .

Each Ideology Fails
So, that is why conservatives fail. Because they are attempting to recreate a political system that is insufficiently complex for the society we live in today.

Liberals fail because the population disagrees with their economic and military program — justifiably so. But more importantly because they do not understand the relationship between the nuclear family, the military requirements of the empire, and the unique property of western civilization: non-corruption.

Libertarians fail because their ethic is antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. WHile libertarians have the best grasp of economics, liberals wil disagree with the libertarian economic program and conservatives will disagree with the libertarian social program.

All people reject cheating. Liberals see individualization of profits as cheating. Libertarians and conservatives see the redistribution of profits as cheating. Conservatives see immorality as cheating. We can try every permutation, but it’s all the same.

In simple terms, liberal=society unified by law, libertarian=society unified by commerce, conservative=society unified by norms. The problem is that we are materially different in our desires and permanently so. So the problem is inventing new institutions that can accomodate the different factions now that we have expanded enfranchisement beyond market-participating males. And we know the lefts economic program is impossible. we know the conservative normative program is impossible. We know the libertarian normative and institutional program is impossible. So we devolve into moralistic banter rather than attempt to solve the problem of creating institutions that allow us to cooperate despite our differences.

The Secret Of Western Civilization
But I will let you in on a secret. This conflict is ancient. And can be answered by one question: why is it that a woman has a right to bear a child that she cannot on her own support? If you can answer that question you can solve the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. because that one question is what drives it.

The western manorial aristocratic economic system that is our heritage required that men demonstrate their fitness in order to gain access to land, and delayed childbirth so that women could work in the crafts. This process suppresses the breeding rates of the underclasses. The church likewise banned inbreeding which encourages early reproduction. THese two factors led to the advancement of western civilization as much as did the rule of law, science, and the division of powers.

Conservatives are attempting still to restrain the breeding of the lower classes to those who can afford to support their own. Liberals are doing the opposite:they are encouraging all the breeding that is possible. These are just the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies of our distant ancestors writ large. Nothing more.

So when you ask the question, what is it that separates the different political ideologies, almost everything you will hear is an elaborate form of justification: a ruse to distract you from this one underlying difference: should we allow everyone to breed if it means that the middle classes must suppress their breeding so that the lower classes may advance their breeding?

Now if someone told you that this is the single most important factor in raising a civilization out of ignorance and poverty, and that it is impossible to build an egalitarian civil society otherwise, how would that affect your answer?

How you answer that question is how you define your political preference.

It’s really that simple.



Conservatism – Security – Eugenics

—“There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the ‘wrong’ reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro

Disgust Response

( … )

  1. A conservative questions overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus.
  2. As a means of questioning, a conservatives requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).
  3. Conservatism requires ‘empirical’ results, and where empirical fails ‘traditional’ since traditional survived empirical tests of reality.
  4. Accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital, attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.
  5. Conservatism is a eugenic reproductive strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families.
  6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.
  7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.

The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science.

As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because it is antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008.

**Sovereignty requires reciprocity
Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary.

Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism.

Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production.

Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse.

But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.**

Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics.

Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.)

Conservatives are actively suppressed in academy and media.

This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)

Production – Opportunity – Balance

( … )

Consumption – Empathy – Dysgenics –

(  … )


(… )


( … )

Military (War)

Conflict (AND WAR)

( …. ) Three choices


The question isn’t how we get along, it’s Genghis Khan’s question:

“Why should the strong refrain from decimation, enslavement, enserfment, or rule for maximum profit?”

The only incentive for the strong is whether cooperation is preferable to conquest. It is only preferable for conquest if it is sufficiently preferable to conquest to refrain from conquest.

So, as the Great Khan said:

“Given that cooperation is not preferable or possible, and serfdom and slavery are costly, that leaves decimation, or rule for the maximization of profit.”

“We might prefer the former or the latter. However the enemy would undoubtedly prefer separation to decimation or rule under out maximization of profit. And this is the wise choice. Since we can still cooperate indirectly by trade while having no influence over one another within the same polity.”

The problem the Khan faced is that he lacked the ability to produce institutions capable of sustained rule, just as expansionary aryans lacked the ability to produce institutions of sustained rule for maximum profit.

The Indo-Aryans succeeded only under decimation and replacement in europe, not by any other means. The europeans killed the males and kept the females. The Persians stayed insular but were invaded by the Arabs, the indo-iranian’s are gone. The Anatolians are gone. The Caucasians are all but gone.

So the Khan was wrong. Decimation was the right answer.




What Is The Basis Of Civilization?



Civilizations do not Die a Natural Death, they Fail

The Production of Commons

Civilization consists in the evolutionary institutional production of commons to defeat time at scale

( … )

Part 2

The Method

1. Knowledge (Epistemology)





Africa (none), Islam – India (Social), China – Russia (political), Germanic West – Mediterranean West (judicial-market)

( … )


Imagine two sculptors, one building up his work with clay by hand, and one removing from stone with a chisel. The sculptor with clay works by adding clay – uses the positive – or the via positiva. And the sculptor carving away stone by subtracting – uses the negative – or the via negativa.

We learn by the competition between imagining, thinking, arguing, discussing with the via positiva, versus discussing, arguing, acting, observing, comparing the consequences with the via negativa. 

The inner world builds with clay of imagination, and the outer world carves away at it with experience of existence.

Our brains evolved to detect constant relations, contingent relations, and inconstant or non relations between states – were states consist in the range of sensations, perceptions, experiences, states, episodes, models, and simulations.

This ability to detect constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations is what we refer to as the logical facility of human beings. All human consciousness, cognition, imagination, thought, reason, calculation, and computation, is dependent upon vast numbers of groups of neurons detecting the degree of relation.

So our brains work by creating a model of the world, imagining a future state of it, testing it mentally, verbally, physically, and that competition between imagination and test is mediated by our logical facility.

The physical universe doesn’t have this choice. Only we have choice. The universe cannot imagine or predict, it only seizes the first local opportunity to advance entropy by dissipating energy. 

Humans have choice. Because we have memory, and because we can predict using that memory, we can envision futures so that we can choose, and choose to maximize the seizure of opportunities to CONCENTRATE energy. Life exists because it takes advantage of entropy to defeat entropy.

But that said, humans are just extensions of the universe, that, because of a hierarchy of subatomic geometry, then particles, elements, molecules, extremely complex molecules, cells, and organs, each of which captures energy faster than it dissipates energy, manages to provide us with the ability use our memory, prediction, auto-association and imagination, to capture enough energy to pay for our big expensive brains.

The primary value of these big brains is to allow us to cooperate. Cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. There isn’t really any comparison – especially over time.

When we create reciprocally, we share the benefits of cooperation. But while we can cooperate, we can also free ride, cheat, or prey upon others instead of cooperate. So reciprocity functions as the logic of cooperation. It tests for the consistency of energy between, just as the human logical facility tests for the constancy, contingency, inconstancy, or non-constancy of relations.

The only reason to cooperate is if cooperation is reciprocal – cumulatively mutually more beneficial than all other available opportunities for cooperation.

Likewise cooperation is so beneficial and free riding, cheating, parasitism, and predation so costly, that we instinctually pay the high cost of punishing those who free ride, cheat, engage in parasitism or predation to protect the incentive and returns on cooperation. 

We test others by tests of reciprocity – cooperative consistency, just as we test all logics by logical consistency. Because there is no difference between logic and logic of cooperation – they provide the same function. If they don’t boycott us, free ride, cheat, engage in parasitism, or predation, then they are functioning in concert with the physical laws of the universe in the defeat of entropy – they are doing it over time by choice – choice available to humans, by virtue of the multiple returns on taking advantage of entropy using our memories, minds, and ability to cooperate – instead of doing it in time, without choice, as occurs in the physical world between particles, elements, molecules, and so on.

So we learn by 

 …. ( … ) ….







  1. Adversarial Calculation physical

  2. Ordinal Calculation Rational

  3. Cardinal Calculation logical

Social <—— Juridical ——> Political

Error of Justification over Adversarialism.

1) Reciprocity is demonstrably universal by rationally, logically, and empirically. This is a via-negativa prohibition.

2) The criteria for reciprocity in any given condition varies given the portfolio of existing traditional, cultural, normative, ethical, moral, legal and institutional changes.

3) Within these portfolios all actions are decidable (and are decided) by reciprocity.

4) As such as with laws, a set of norms, matters, ethics, morals evolve as rules of thumb covering the majority of cases and questions.

5) Individuals and groups can be educated in the method of determining reciprocity within these local portfolios as well as any other portfolio they can gain sufficient general knowledge of to explain.

6) Because we begin in ignorance, and grow and learn more about the world we first imitate simple rules, come to understand general rules, and eventually in later age, come to undrestand outcomes and handle exceptions.

7) And we increasingly rely on adversarial competition in markets to test our ideas, and adversarial competition before more knowledgable ‘judges and juries’ for resolution of differences (errors, biases, deceits).

8) Some portfolios evolve to diverge from reciprocity. This does not alter the demand for reciprocity. It generates demand for the rebalancing of the portfolio so that it consist of a collection of interdependent demands for reciprocity rather than irreciprocity.

Some portfolios are temporally disadvantageous but cumulatively advantageous, (western) some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively stagnating (east asian) and some are temporally advantageous but cumulatively disastrous and (jewish), some are temporally advantageous and cumulatively catastrophic (muslim).

Some create capital rapidly and expand capital externally (european). Some create limited capital slowly and expand capital externally (chinese). Some create capital at the expense of others (jewish). Some consume capital at the expense of others (muslim).

Justificationism was false. Falsificationism was only half of the story. It’s western Adversarialism that discovered and maintained truth in all walks of life.

There is a universal via negativa. Anything that is not irreciprocal within the local portfolio of manners, ethics morals, norms, laws, traditions is ethical and moral.

When conflicts occur across portfolios they are easily decided by reciprocity independent of the local portfolios of manners, ethics morals norms laws traditions.

Virtues consist of cultivating knowledge and habits that (a) suppress impulse the exports costs in favor of excellence (bearing costs), (a) minimize chances of irreciprocity, (b) bias our cost neutral decisions to the benefit the commons rather than the self.

As such, just as some virtues are true and false to their pretense, some are true and false in combination with others.

And we can only test whether virtues are true by adversarialism: competition.

Worse, virtue signaling in and over itself is the most hyper consumptive of false virtues.


11 – The most rapid means by which man can organize the suppression of parasitism is by defining property rights as all demonstrated property, and creating a court of universal standing under the common law, under the rule of law before a jury of his peers – since any innovation in parasitism is suppressed by the creation of a new prohibition with the first suit adjudicated. (Common, organically evolutionary law most rapidly prevents expansion of demonstrated parasitic opportunities.)

12 – A market for goods and services produces consumables, but a market for commons produces non-consumables. Non-consumable goods that provide utility whether those goods be privately constructed (use by private shareholders only) or publicly constructed (use by all citizen-shareholders). Commons (whether physical, normative or institutional) provide a disproportionate return to shareholders by preventing consumption and preserving utility.

13 – Majority rule is a sufficient means of decision making for small homogenous groups who must select priorities to achieve using limited resources. Majority rule is insufficient means of decision making for large heterogeneous groups with conflicting preferences. In heterogeneous groups monopoly rule by majority rule, is merely a vehicle for justifying thefts. Homogenous groups may need to select priorities among desirable ends, but because heterogeneous groups have incompatible ends, heterogeneous groups need means of cooperation on means despite incompatible ends: agreements by which difference can be mitigated through mutually beneficial exchanges. As such the purpose of government is the construction of commons by creating a market for the contractual production of commons.

14 – Moral, and therefore non-parasitic, agreements between parties that are productive, fully informed, voluntary, and warrantied need no assent (approval) from third parties. Instead, all such agreements need only refrain from externalities: the imposition of costs on the property-en-toto of third parties. As such, in any market for the production of commons, assent is not necessary for the construction of exchanges between classes with differing interests. Instead such contracts must only survive criticism: adjudication. As such anyone can sue to invalidate a contract. But no one’s approval is necessary for such contracts. As such the construction of commons requires not ascent. Instead, the prevention of a contract requires dissent that survives adjudication.

15 – Division of Cognitive Labor– moral specialization and therefore moral blindness – exchanges as a means of calculation by trades of cooperation between specialists.

16 – The Family-Regulation of Reproduction–

17 – Division of Houses by Cognitive Labor —

13 – A condition of both interpersonal morality both forces all human action necessary for man’s survival into productive participation in the market by denying parasitism, and reduces or eliminates transaction costs (frictions due to risk), which in turn maximizes the potential economic velocity of the group.

14 – A condition of liberty is constructed when all men, including those who participate in the construction of commons – members of the government – are equally bound by the prohibition on parasitism: the common law against parasitism. (Morality is a synonym for non-parasitism. Liberty is a synonym for a moral – meaning non-parasitic – government.)

15 – If one does not engage in parasitism by doing so, the forcible increase of the suppression of others’ free riding is always by definition moral and just. This increases the possibilities of prosperity for all men. (Legal colonialism is moral. Economic colonialism is not.) (Aristocracy is obliged to increase the pool of aristocratic people whenever possible, and affordable.)

There is no competitive strategy greater than the suppression of parasitism in all it’s forms. Because all human effort is limited to the market for productive ends, and all market activity is conducted under the lowest possible speculative friction.

The optimum group evolutionary strategy is to suppress all parasitism, while constantly driving up it’s intelligence by suppressing the reproduction of its lower classes (non performers). This causes no harm, and produces the greatest and longest term competitive benefit.)

If many groups follow this strategy, the largest group with the highest median IQ and aggression (competitive energy) will produce the most innovation. Anti parasitism is eugenic, and parasitism is dysgenic.

Some groups cannot compete. So they will continue to act as parasites. (Gypsies).

(important framing)
The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute.
The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization.
So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining.
Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences.
Adversarialism: truth seeking,
Discourse: consensus seeking,
Undermining: deception seeking.

2. Adversarialism 


3. The Arguments



There are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert:

1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing) Institution: Law

2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation) Institution: Credit

3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing) Institution: Religion (norms)

We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite.

The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation.

Natural law (which Sovereignty translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy).

For all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the Greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just

So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing.

We first had an invasion of Babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism.

1 – Then we had an invasion of Christianity (Mysticism: Judaism, Christianity, Islamism).

2 – Then we had the invasion of Marxism (Pseudoscience: Marxism, Boazianism, Freudianism, Frankfurt School aesthetics.

3 – Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.)

These constitute three waves of increasingly articulate lies, that undermine high trust societies. The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud.

Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive. But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.

So, There are three ways to coerce people: force(law/military), payment(trade), and shaming(gossip/morals)

These techniques correspond to conservative(saving), libertarian(trade), and progressive(shaming).

And these correspond to the reproductive roles of father(conservative), the brother(libertarian), and the mother and sister(progressive)

And that’s because it’s the reproductive strategy of the males, the young, and the females.

We differ in perception and function, but are compatible, and through exchanges(negotiations and trades) we ‘discover‘ the ‘price’ of persistence (survival). And we rebel at the limits, when exchanges are no longer possible or desirable..

It’s very simple. We all just negotiate on behalf of our reproductive strategies. It’s that simple. All our talk is nonsense.


(continuous adaptation to demands)


The next ten arguments you engage in, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.

1) Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

2) Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

3) Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

4) Reasonable (informal)

5) Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

10) Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

6) Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

7) Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

8) Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

9) Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).


1) Ignorance and Error

2) Bias and Wishful Thinking

3) Loading and Framing

Loading = Moral Loading (a form of biasing a suggestion, causing the person to be more heavily influenced by intuition – social effects.)

Framing = a form of informational cherry-picking where one eliminates some information and overloads with other information, in order to bias the conclusions of others.

Overloading = Cognitive Overloading ( The use of information, language, detail, to cause the failure of the individual to analytically tests the statement and resort to intuition – cognitive effects)

4) Suggestion, Obscurantism, Overloading

5) Fictionalism and Deceit

Pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, religion, and narrative are methods of Overloading. (Marxism is at present the second best form of overloading after monotheism – both of which make false utopian promises).


1 – Conflation (Substitution, Ambiguity, Signaling)

Conflation consists in the practice of combining two or more distinct concepts in order to perform on or more of the following:

  1. Compensate for one’s lack of knowledge or skill (ambiguity).
  2. Using terms that convey status, experience, or education (signaling).
  3. Attribute greater weight to a proposition than is warranted (conflation).
  4. Misrepresent one thing as another (substitution).


A common conflation we all make is to conflate Like with Good, and Good with True.

|Decidability| Undecidable > Possible > Useful > Valuable(Like) > Preferable (Personally Preferable) > Good(Reciprocally Preferable) > True (decidable) > Analytically True (internally consistent) > Tautologically True (identical)


Another example:

The common conflation of Reasonable, Rational, and Logical.

|Decisions| (Un)intelligible > (In)Sensible(Understandable) > (Un)Reasonable > (Ir)Rational > (Il)Logical > (In)Calculable > (Un)Computable > (Un)Deniable

In ordinary language (prose), we conflate reasonable, rational and logical to signal our degree of dispassion, degree of criticism, to attribute greater weight to our claims than exists, or to demonstrate status – rather than stating the method we’re using, and adhere to its limitations.

However, Reasonable (loose), Rational (limited), and Logical (strict) refer to increasing constraints on the strictness of our reasoning,

Loose: The Reasonable requires only ordinary informal reason. Meaning that we must only be able to sympathetically tests the sequence of thoughts of ourselves or others for possibility or believability. In courts we test reasonableness every day, and always have.


“That’s reasonable” translates to “I can understand how you, or one would, come to that conclusion”.

Limited: The Rational relies on Rationalism, meaning that which is limited to apprehension and judgment by our reason. However, in practice, Rationalism means ‘justification’ or ‘Justificationism’. Justificationism evolved from ordinary human moral and ethical justification (explanation, or excuse), scriptural Interpretation in the middle east, and legal interpretation in the west, and later textual interpretation in the west and far east.

In criminal, ethical, moral, explanatory, and communication contexts, to we provide a set of propositions that lead one to a conclusion like directions lead us to a location on a map. However, all non-trivial, real world propositions (assumptions) are forever contingent. Meaning that no amount of justification (reasons or evidence) provides a proof (truth), only an explanation of one’s understanding (theory). Rationalism(Justification) differs from Science (falsification) in that in science, justifications only provide us with suggestions of how we might falsify a proposition (theory) to see if it survives (is true). In this sense, a justification is an excuse for stating a testimony (truth claim).

We can justify (prove) very little outside of mathematics, or that which is reducible to mathematical relations. But we can falsify (demonstrate a falsehood) using the first two rules. We will discuss this in depth later on.

Justification (Justificationism) is still (unfortunately) taught in philosophy classes in the west if not everywhere.

Strict: The Logical relies upon the three classic laws of thought:

(1) The law of identity – that the properties of a referent are unique enough that it cannot be conflated with something else. This is best thought of that a referrer and a referent are uniquely correspondent.

(2) The law of non-contradiction stats that for any sentence or proposition, it and its negation cannot both be true. In other words, the law states that there are no true contradictions.

(3) The law of excluded middle states that for any sentence (or proposition), that sentence is either true or false. This is equivalent to saying that truth and falsity are the only truth values for a sentence, and that no well-formed sentences are simultaneously not true and not false. This is somewhat problematic because there is a difference between false and undecidable.

These three criteria leave us only two venues of decidability: (a)”mutually exclusive” and (b) “jointly exhaustive”, and provide no choice of the unknown or contingent.

2 – Suggestion:

Suggestion consists in the practice of stating:

  1. a complete, coherent, consistent, correspondent, statement or narrative
  2. a question, example, or puzzle that is by its nature incomplete
  3. an incomplete statement or narrative
  4. an analogous statement or narrative
  5. an incoherent statement or narrative
  6. an erroneous statement or narrative

Such that the observer (audience) must infer, or supply (“fill in”), willingly or not, the information that is necessary for sensibility (coherence) in order to understand the actor (speaker).

Unfortunately, the process of serialized speech (sequences of sounds, words, phrases, sentences) consists of a stream of suggestions by the actor (speaker), and “filling-in” (tentative completion) by the observer (audience).

The question is only whether the contract for meaning produced by the actor (speaker) is reciprocal (equally understood) by the observer (audience) or not.

The actor can pay the cost of due diligence, or the observer can pay the cost of due diligence, assuming either has the ability to do so. Unfortunately, knowledge is always and forever asymmetrical and therefore due diligence against fraudulent contract terms (contract for meaning) leaves the participant with the greatest knowledge asymmetrically responsible for the warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.


A common libertarian artifice is “The Non-Aggression Principle”, which consists of an incomplete statement (“an incomplete statement or narrative” above). For one to aggress, one must aggress against something. By not stating what people may not aggress against, this deception forces the observer to rely upon intuition to complete his understanding. For this reason, while people vastly agree upon the general meaning of aggression, they disagree upon what one may or may not aggress against. This provides nearly everyone who hears it with the incentive to agree with the proposition yet continuously disagree with what may or may not be aggressed against.

(You will see this pattern of deception throughout libertarianism, Marxism, and Neo Conservatism.)

In general, beware ‘principles’ as nothing more than arbitrary statements of appeal to tradition or authority by those who lack the knowledge to make the judgments they claim to.

3 – Omniscience

An unfortunate consequence of demand for efficient speech, even in a language as precise as English, is our use of the Copula (the verb to-be) to conflate both the forms of existence, and observer’s point of view, allowing us to testify on behalf of others, and to escape responsibility for our testimony.

(b) Eliminating The Copula (the Verb To-Be) to eliminate pretense of authority, and escape liability for testimony (speech).


Take the simple sentence “The cat is black”. (Much like “Chocolate is good” in the example above.) This is ‘god mode’ (omniscient) speech. Rather than “I promise I see a cat. The cats fur appears black. If you observe this cat, it’s fur will appear black to you as well.”

There are a host of reasons we use the copula for the sake of brevity.

This single grammatical device is the source of the vast majority of sophisms in the English language. For example, there is a great difference between “Everything in this box is a lie”, and “I promise I have written only lies in this box”.   In philosophy this is considered a paradox, when it is simply that the actor (speaker, composer) is engaged in an intentional conflation of promising and lying – it’s just a case of bad grammar. In other words, phrases and sentences don’t ‘mean something platonic or ideal’ the author intends a meaning and succeeds or fails and producing it grammatically such that it’s consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete – and possible, rational, and reciprocal if claimed so. In other words, the author claims a text has meaning rather than an actor composes text meaningfully or not, and ethically or not.

Another Example:

Compare the two sentences “I, Albert, saw Brock throw the rock toward Carl, and it hit Carl, and Carl flinched when it hit him.” versus “Brock was angry and threw a rock at Carl, and it hurt him, and made him angry.” I cannot testify to Brock’s or Carl’s moods or intentions, only to the operation that Brock threw a rock and the rock hit Carl.

4 – Extrapolation

Extrapolation means assuming whatever you observe continues to share properties with what you cannot observe.

For example:

“The house is green.” Versus “I see a house. I can see two sides. The two sides I can see appear green, I cannot see other than those two sides of the house.”

5 – Inflation (White Lie)

Inflation consists of three techniques, Loading, Framing, and Overloading

            |Inflation| Loading > Framing > Obscuring > Overloading

Loading (Valuing)

Loading consists of the addition of subjective value (personal, normative, cultural, religious, political, methodological, and disciplinary), rather than the removal (deflation) of it, by ‘display, word, or deed”.

Framing (Leading)

Framing refers to a form of suggestion (inference) wherein the presentation of information, or telling of a story, in a way that influences the observer – by emphasizing negative and positive consequences. (From the legal “I’ve been framed!”.)

For example:

Whenever we are presented with information we attempt to construct a network of relations that we use to create a model understanding and evaluation no matter how little or much information we are given. At any given time on any given subject we might be able to present the information from different points of view – thereby causing the observer (audience) to empathize with that point of view. Or to cause the observer (audience) to hypothesize cause, or intention. Or to recall and associate the story with a myth, or norm, or saying.

Obscuring, Obscurantism (Hiding)

Obscuring refers to the use of characterized by deliberate vagueness or obliqueness in argument intended to prevent understanding, to hinder the process of understanding, or to hinder full understanding.

For example:

Philosophers engage in obscurantism when describing the abstract concepts of their disciplines.

Public intellectuals write esoterically to avert persecution by the political or religious authorities, or obscurely, in order to hide his or her vacuousness.

Populists engage in obscurantism denote and describe the denial of the empirical truth of scientific theory, because of the disagreeable moral consequences that might arise from acceptance of fact.

Many of us engage in ‘hand waving’ in order to pretend knowledge, obscure our ignorance, avoid stating the unpleasant, or to avoid blame.

Overloading (Overwhelming)

Overloading refers to an actor supplying enough information that the observer can only intuit rather than reason through the material.

The most effective means of overloading is sophism: an apparently sophisticated argument that is correct in form but false in consequence.

Pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and religion all rely upon compensating for the otherwise unbelievable with an abundance of information that overloads the observer’s ability to reason. Particularly if the observer has incentive to believe in the falsehood in the first place.

Advertising, Propaganda, Pseudoscientific Papers books and articles, Pilpul (misleading justification) and Critique (misleading criticism), philosophical rationalism(justification), and statistics (innumeracy) are the most common methods of overloading.

6 –Fictionalisms

|Fictions| Testimony > Narration > Story > Fiction > Fictionalism > Deception > Fraud

A positive Fictionalism refers to those statements that appear to be descriptions of the real world (reality) but are cases of “make believe” – of pretending that a given useful fiction is other than just a useful fiction. A negative Fictionalism refers to the most successful means of deception (coercion) by loading, framing and overloading.

Given our the methods of perception:

|Perception| Physical (sensory) > Intuitionistic (intuitionistic, emotional) > Mental (intellectual, reason)

And the methods of inflating and conflating them:

|Fictionalisms| Magical (Technical, Physical) > Supernatural (Occult, Experiential) > Ideal (Intellectual, Verbal)

We produce these common uses of Fictionalism:

Ideal (intellectual):

1) Mathematical Fictionalism, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

2) Platonic Fictionalism (Idealism) which states that….

3) Rational Fictionalism (continental philosophy)

Magical (Technical):

4) Human Fictionalism (‘Denialism’) state that equality in all possible dimensions (a falsehood), is too necessary to throw out.

5) Modal Fictionalism developed by _________ which states that possible worlds, or multiple worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse.

6) Pseudosciences:

Supernormal (Experiential):

7) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, suggests that fictions (falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

8) Religious Fictionalism in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of Fictionalism are too useful, and somehow necessary to throw out.

9) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) are somehow necessary to escape reality, or fabricate a false version of it.

We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past, and failing to perform the cost of reformation of the terms, paradigms, and stories.

Fictionalisms make use of three presumptions:

1) Communication of Meaning: The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.

2) Meaningful but not True: Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

3) A Useful Fiction Not Open To Further Interpretation (Face Value): The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

… Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of:

… of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)

Speakers attempt to preserve the use of Fictionalisms for one of the following possible reasons:

1) To obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or

2) To preserve the sunk cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or

3) To avoid the costs of reformation the method of decidability within their domains.

4) To avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.

5) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgments are truths.

5) To conduct frauds by using their arbitrary preferences or judgments for coercion or profit. 

7 – Fraud and Deceit (black lie)

Fraud is any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unearned gain, avoidance of loss or demand for restitution, or for unwarranted harm to others; while Deceit is an act or practice intended to deceive or trick whether for gain or not.

Distinguishing between Fraud and Deceit requires we expand our analysis beyond terms and into incentives. And that evaluation, will require Operational Language, Fully Expanded Sentences, and an Account of Changes in State – which we will cover later in the chapters on Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law.

However, we can identify malincentives, which consist of either Discounts or Premiums.



|Malincentives| Signaling > Biasing > Deceiving > Defrauding



Virtue Signaling










8 – Evil (deep black lie)



Numerology, Idealism, Astrology, Mythology, Magic, Supernatural,

Disapproval, contempt , ridicule, shaming,

4. The Method  


Part 999 – The Method

The Methodology:

Via-Negativa: In The Negative

( … )

Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.

Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements.

So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

The question is only the precision of the measures.

P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.


Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’.

Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’.


Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil
constant relations:
1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative
2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest
3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.)

Most sophistry in philosophy consists of:
1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence;
3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon;
4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms.

You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms.

Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics.

Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority.

The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply-demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

Dimensions Perceivable By Humans

  1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.
  2. Identity =(NAMES)

– Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties
– Constant Relations between collections of properties.

  1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)

– Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .)
– Constant relations between collections of references

  1. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)

– Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative
– Constant Relations between collections of references and reality

  1. Operational = (ACTIONS)

– Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation
– Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

  1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
  2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)

This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide.

Each depends upon the one before it.

The Grammars

We tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.

The Grammars of Truth and Deceit

Grammar (rules) or A Grammar (book) consists of:

“Grammar” In Testimony

However, “Grammar” in Testimony, also includes the transformation of different Speech Paradigms into a set of Operational Logics.

Formal Operational Logic  vs Formal Set Logics

So we refer to Formal Logic or Formal Set Logic from the interpretation of algebra, text, and scripture (and tea leaves, astrology, and entrails), versus Formal Operational Logic of a sequence of objectively testable human operations, either physical (body), rational(incentive), or logical (cognitive).

That Formal Operational Logic includes:

So a Traditional Grammar is a ‘Weak’ or “Loose” logic of speech across all Paradigms of Speech, and a Propertarian Grammar is a ‘Strong’ logic of speech for each of those Paradigms of Speech.

We provide a Periodic Table of Speech (Poster really) listing all of the Grammars.

NOTE: Find our Periodic Table of Speech Here <— (Add Link)

… Deceits
… … … Fictionalism
… … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic
… … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and
… … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult




1) Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

2) Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

3) Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

4) Reasonable (informal)

5) Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

10) Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

6) Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

7) Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

8) Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

9) Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

10 – Idea – Surreal

11 – Pseudoscicnce-magic
12 – Fictional-Parable

13 – Theology-occult

14 – Lying




Part 999 – Testimony: Truth and Lying


“Truth is the hard problem of both philosophy and science. And Religion is the hard problem of social science. Both were hare to solve largely because we so desperately want to find what isn’t there, and so habituated that preoccupation, that we did not know how to look at the questions without it presuming it was there.”

Truth, Truthful Speech

Demand for Infallibility in Decidability

enough for?

Where Given These Dimensions:

  1. Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
  2. Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable)
  3. Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
  4. Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

Yields the Series:

  1. Indistinguishable(perception) >
  2. Distinguishable(cognition) >
  3. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
  4. Possible(material) >
  5. Actionable(physical) >
  6. Choosable(for use) >
  7. Preferable(Personal) >
  8. Good(interpersonal) >
  9. Decidable(political) >
  10. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
  11. Analytically True >
  12. Tautologically True.

Where Truthful Speech that Satisfies the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series:

  1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
  2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
  3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
  4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
  5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
  6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension, and values.
  7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (‘True’)
  8. Logical: Decidable out of physical (Theoretical) or logical (Axiomatic) or rational (Bounded Rationality) necessity
  9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) the market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

Where Truth Consists in The Series of Definitions

  1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
  2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
  3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
  4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
  5. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
  6. Demonstrated Preference:

Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

  1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
  2. Internally Consistent (Logical)
  3. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
  4. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
  5. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
  6. Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
  7. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry-picking and inflation)
  8. Warrantied
    … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
    … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
    … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

As a Defense Against the Series:

  1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
  2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
  3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
  4. And the many Deceits of:
    … (a) Loading and Framing;
    … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading(direct) and Propaganda (environmental);
    … (c) Fictionalisms of SophismsPseudorationalismsPseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
    … (d) and outright Fabrications (Deceits)

In Defense or Advocacy Of:

  1. Any transfer that is not:
    … (a) productive
    … (b) fully informed
    … (c) warrantied
    … (d) voluntary
    … (e) free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by any externality.

Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of:

  1. murder,
  2. harm, damage, theft,
  3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
  4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
  5. rent-seeking, corruption, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
  6. conversion(Religion, Ideology, Sophism,Pseudoscience),
  7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
  8. conquest (war).

Lying and Deceit

And Whereas People lie:

  1. To advance an interest
  2. To obtain an interest
  3. To preserve an interest

And where the Spectrum of Lying consists of:

  1. Intent to deceive.
  2. Failure of due diligence against lying
  3. Carrier of and distributor of lies
  4. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
  5. A genetic predisposition to lie.


  1. White Lie: Preservation or construction of an emotional (status, relationship) debt or credit.
  2. Grey Lie: Protecting interests from liability due to accidental harm to others’ interests.
  3. Black Lie: Gaining an interest by intentional destruction or transfer of another’s interests.
  4. Evil Lie: Causing harm to others’ interest for the purpose of causing harm rather than gaining interest for one’s self.


Lying consists in the Failure of due diligence against:

  1. ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking,

And making use of:

  1. Loading, Framing, Obscuring, Suggestion;
  2. Ridiculing, Shaming, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Gossiping, Propagandizing Reputation Destruction;
  3. Sophisms (Overloading), (Appealing to cognitive biases);
  4. Straw Manning via Negativa, and Heaping of Undue Praise via Positiva;
  5. Fictionalisms of Idealism, Innumeracy, Pseudoscience, Supernaturalism;
  6. Fictions (Deceit)
  7. Denialism

Instead of:

  1. Truthful Speech

Free and Truthful Speech

Where Free and Truthful Speech consists in (a) what you can testify to in court. And (b) What you can defend or claim as reciprocal 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).

So when engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends or family where signaling is a necessary contribution to the internal trust economy ), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or ir-reciprocal 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 the government can only apply violence.

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:

  1. Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
  2. 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)?
  3. 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)SophismIdealismPseudoscience, 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, bias, 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.

And that is exactly how the Enemy operates as organized crime:  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.



The demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice.

The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice.

In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

The Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc

The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.
Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.

Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.

Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.

We are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.





5. The Grammars


The Dimensions

The Geometry of Our Grammars

Now that we have completed our journey through creating Dimensions of Decidability using Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization, and Competition, we can:

Geometry of Decidability


(the via negativa pzzle pcs)

Dimensions Present in our Vocabulary

Next, we can examine our vocabulary and organize the terms into a series of categories.

|WORD| > Name(Noun) > Action(Verb) > Relations > Agreements > Noise Words > Code Words.

And within each category of word we find multiple dimensions.

|Name(Noun)| : Proper(Person > Thing > Place > Idea > Perception(sense) > Emotion(value)) > Common (categorical) > Compound > Pronoun > Clarifier (Determiner/Measure) > Property(adjective) >

|State| State > Event > Action > Experience > Thought

|Person| First > Second > Third > Abstract

|Gender| Female < Young Female < Neutral > Young Male > Male.

|Possession|- Possession (‘s – “apostrophe s” in English) (“Can Own”) > (“Can be owned”) > (Cannot be owned”)

|Number|- Unique > Countable > Collection/Mass(not worth counting) > Uncountable.

|Perception|- Concrete(observable 5 Senses) > Emotions(Feelings) > Ideas(Abstr.)

Or: |Experience| Perceivable > Experience-able > Imaginable

|Action(Verb)| > Action Property(adverb) > Action Clarifier(Phrasal Verbs) >

|Knowledge| Unknown > Believed > Known > Undeniable > Tautological

|Ownership| Undiscovered > Unconvertible > Unconverted > “Homesteaded”(Worked) > Possessed(Fact) > Consensual Property (Agreement) > Normative Property (Habit) > Property Right (Insured by third party) > inalienable(life, memory, imagination, Emotion)

|Possibility| Impossibility > Contingency(Might) > Possibility(Can) > Necessity(Shall).

|Permissibility| Impermissible > Permissible(May) > Obligatory(Must).

|Temporality| Always Been > Has been > is Currently > Will Be > Will Always Be.

|Gain or Loss| Gain < Neutral > Loss

|Decidability| Incommensurable > Undecidable > Preferable > Good > True.

|Relations| Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) >

|Agreements| Agreement(yes-no) >

|Noise Words| Noise Words(Expletives etc.) >

|Code Words| code-words(acronyms etc.)

What Can We Learn From Those Dimensions?

A great deal:

But these three sets provide a large set of sensory dimensions for describing our references.

As we will see later, this emphasis on possession, ownership, and property is necessary for both cooperation and ‘calculation’, and function as the basis of ethics and morality, and our valuation of changes in state of possessions (or interests) the origin of our emotional responses. We are, whether we like it or not, acquisition machines, using language to negotiate cooperation because of the far higher returns on a division of labor than are possibly by individual action.

A Change In Paradigm (Ontology)

Justification an self and knowledge
Contract and others and trade and consent.

Note: For those who have experience with Taxonomies of vocabulary, this categorization is significantly different from Roget’s – and somewhat dehumanizing.

Words: Measurements and Collections of Measurements (Weights and Measures)


The Contractual Constitution of Meaning (Words, Phrases, Sentences)


The Experiential: The Dimensions of Perception (Experience)

|EXPERIENCE| Physical(external intermaterial) > Perceptual (external-internal) > Emotional(internal) > Mental(imaginary) > Social(external interpersonal)

( … )

The Real: Dimensions of Reality

Now, how can we DESCRIBE the universe? With dimensions consisting of constant relations.

Now, we are going to make frequent use of these terms ‘dimension’ and ‘dimensions’. And the most simple constant relation we know of is mathematics: the study of positional relations:

0-Point (Referent)(Identity, anchor referent)(quantity)
1-Line (Distance)(Relations)
2-Area (Ideal)(Sets)
3-Object (Ideal Object) (Space)
4-Time (Velocity) (Change)
5 – N – Pure Relations (Concepts/Categories)
6 – N vs. N’ Relations, (Forces) (Equilibria)
7 – N vs. N’ Intermediate Relations, (Symmetries)
8 – N vs N’ relations between symmetries (Paradigms)
9 – (N vs N’)’ recursive hierarchies of symmetries ad infinitum. (Reality)

And we have mathematical techniques for such dimensions.

0 – Correspondence (referents, identity)
1 – Positional names, Arithmetic, Accounting. (counting)
2 – Mathematics and algebra (Ratios)
3 – Geometry (Space)
4 – Calculus, Finance, Economics. (Change)
5 – Algebraic Geometry (Math of sets of constant relations)
6 – Physics (equilibration)
7 – Lie Groups, (Symmetries, Externalities, Future of Economics)
(8 – Grammars)
(9 – Paradigms) (stories) (Semantics)
(10 – Fictions)
(11 – Ideals )
(12 – Dreams)

And that we have discovered mathematical techniques for the preservation of constant relations in increasing layers of complexity ….

The Dimensions of Relations

Dimensions of Meaning: Geometry of Thought, Speech, and Argument

(try to explain)

(how the mathematical dimensions and the verbal dimension and paradigms and stories…. It’s all dimensions)

From any given point, there are an infinite number of vectors.

All thoughts can be represented geometrically.

But like Mandelbrot’s Fractals, they are not calculable by man, only computable by machines.

However, the underlying symmetries (shapes) will be consistent across contexts, for the simple reason that grammars are consistent across contexts (paradigms).


The Periodic Table Of Speech

|GRAMMARS| Deflationary Grammars < Ordinary Grammars > Inflationary Grammars.

Grammars: Overcoming the Problem of Human Scale (necessary because of computational limitations)

Use of external resources to render commensurable that which is beyond our abilities.

Deflationary Grammars (decidable)

Ordinary Grammars (practical)

So we can at least include these Ordinary Language grammars.

Inflationary Grammars (meaningful)

Deception Grammars (Under, over, and false loading)

Conflationary (Fraud) Grammars (overloading, frauds)

The Periodic Table of Grammars

(Poster Size)

Figure 1 The Periodic Table of Grammars

Note: The table is too large for inclusion in this book, in any readable form,

but is available online at https://propertarianinstitute.com/grammars where you can download a PDF version, or order a poster online.

Reorganizing Our Categories of Language

Semantics Are Limited by and Subordinate To Grammars

Now Let’s Look at the Rest of Communication

Now, Just as mathematics consists in the study of constant relations, at increasing numbers of dimensions, we can perform the same analysis for all other forms of communication. And we will see how all our grammars are organized by the very same means – the organization of constant relations. And then how some deflate relations, so me preserve relations, some inflate relations, some conflate relations. And as such we will see how we use these various grammars to communicate the entire spectrum of reality from the existential to the imaginary.

Language –   all same enough that they reflect a common set of abilities and limits of the human brain.   SVO, SOV, VSO, but in all cases we describe states of subjects or changes in states of subjects, and we combine this little stories into ever increasingly complex sentences, paragraphs and stories, and we weave these stories into paradigms and then into networks of paradigms, and those networks of paradigms and stories provide us with context, and that content lessens the computational cost of composing stories, paragraphs, sentences, phrases, and sub-stories consisting of descriptions of state or changes in state – and attach to those stories some value or other. And therefore assist us in making decisions from the most casual and unconscious to the most deliberative and calculative.

Context and Precision: Ordinary language varies from formal, meaning low context and high precision, to common to idiomatic, meaning high context low precision. The lower the precision the higher the context the more suggestion is created by the speaker and the more substitution is required of the audience.

Dialects. Within languages we create Dialects – regional, class, and occupational. These vary in paradigms, vocabulary, values, morphology and phonology, but most often preserve the same syntax: rules of sentence construction.

Across these dialects, and across all languages and dialects, we have produced various technological variations in grammar (paradigm?), meaning rules of word and sentence construction, which in turn limit the vocabulary, the paradigm, the logic within the paradigm, and the grammar and syntax of statements, sentences, paragraphs, arguments, stories and ever increasing stories within the paradigm.

And Speech itself consists of a hierarchical repetition of increasing complexity:

|Speech| Word > Phrase > Clause > Sentence(Subject + Predicate=Story) > Paragraph(story) > Grammar of Science > Grammar of Narrative > Grammar of Stories(Story) > Grammar of Story > Story, “all the way up”.

Organizing Language

So we can organize (or rather we have no choice but to organize) something like a hierarchy such as:

1 – Universal Grammar: recursively limited differences, similarities in all available dimensions.

2 – Dimensional Grammars (Dimensional Semantics?):
Deflationary (real) < Ordinary (experiential) > Inflationary (Ideal) > Conflationary (supernatural)

3 – Languages

4 – Ordinary Language Grammars

5 – Semantics (Paradigms)

6 – Dialects

7 – Idioms and expletives etc.

Anglo Analytic deflationary and scientific as a reformation of law versus continental conflationary and philosophical as a reformation of religion.

Deflationary Literature Markets versus Conflationary Literature Monopolies

( … )

Meaning (Grammars of Meaning?)


The Two Faces of Suggestion

( … )

The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs.

|METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion)

ie: Cost—>+

|LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-)

ie: Cost—>+

|ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable)

ie: Cost—>+

|CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution)

ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+

|MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete)

ie: Cost—>+

|PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge

ie: Cost—>+

|CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment

ie: Cost—>+

|TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)”

ie: Cost—>+

|STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial.

ie: Cost—>+

|HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*.

ie: Cost—>+

This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest

The Grammars

We use different words for pretentious purposes – largely we don’t know better. So let’s clear up the difference between a religion, an ideology, a philosophy, a logic and a science.



|NARRATIVE(Story)| Name > Change in State > Description > History (Recipe) > Idealism(Substitution) > Fiction(suggestion) > Myth > Supernatural > Occult > Free Association.


War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.

Wisdom Literature

(… )


A Religion provides mindfulness – which is increasingly necessary outside of the simplicity of tribal life of hunter gatherers. Mindfulness increases trust and our ability to cooperate peacefully in larger and larger numbers. A religion provides not only decidability on social interactions, but mindfulness so that we can cope with stresses of all kinds in an increasingly uncertain world. A religion relies on an internally coherent set of rules, myths, rituals, and festivals, but its neither logical nor empirical.


( … )

Doctrines (Laws)

( … )


( … )

Costs (Rituals)

( … )


( … )


( … )

– A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use.

1) A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion.



A Belief, or a Set of Beliefs provides an individual or group with a strategy for achieving personal objectives, a set of methods of decidability, and a moral defense (rationalization ) for our behavior if we are criticized.


(…) Myth – (INTERTEMPORAL) Wisdom Literature (in my opinion the proper forum for teaching wisdom) – Inflationary vocabulary, grammar, and reality.


An Ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy. An ideology provides political decidability for interest groups. An ideology relies upon correspondence with a prejudice, shared by a group with self-perceived common interests. It need not be either rational nor empirical, since the purpose of ideology, like religion, is to make logical and empirical criticism impossible – or at least too costly to prosecute.

– AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy.

2) An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes.


3) A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgments in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies.

A Philosophy provides a coherent JUSTIFICATIONARY system of decidability within a domain of interest. Philosophy relies upon tests of internal consistency we call logical grammars. A Philosophy need be internally consistent, non contradictory, coherent, even if only marginally correspondent to reality. A philosophy answers the questions of preference and good.

In practice it is very hard to claim that philosophy has practiced the pursuit of truth. (more harm appears to have been done by novelists, philosophers an prophets than good, and more good by historians and scientists than harm. We can easily claim that philosophy has practiced the pursuit of choice and decidability. But if we claim philosophy has sought to produce truth we would have a harder time demarcating between science and philosophy. And my understanding of the point of demarcation between science and philosophy is the difference between choice and decidability – or rather the preferable and the good versus the true.

And as you will discover, my understanding is that the velocity of human existential transcendence – meaning the development of human agency both physical, emotional, and intellectual, and both individual and cooperative – is dependent upon the difference between the decidable truth and the practiced falsehoods.

As such I separate the grammars, from the operations, from the testimonies, from the fictions. Meaning that I separate logical grammars of testimony, from operational recipes such as the sciences, from wisdom literature such as histories, from the literature of persuasion and conflict we call philosophies, fictions, and religions.

In this sense while I have combined philosophy, law, science, logic, and grammar into a single commensurable language, you will find that I frequently criticize those who have done all the damage to this world, with little contribution to the good of it. And in that sense I will come across as an anti-philosopher of sorts who has appropriated some of the content of philosophy while excoriating vast categories of it, as dishonest, manipulative, and harmful to man.

– A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods.

And so:

If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and

If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.


We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

The Natural Law of Reciprocity, is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.


A Fiction (Story)

Now, you wouldn’t assume that there exists a formal grammar to the structure of narratives but there is. And it consists of just ‘changes in state, all the way up.’ Just as reality consists of changes in state of dimensions.

And if we look at Fiction (Stories) we see many permutations of changes in state: nothing more than sequences of changes in state. (re: Vonnegut). And only three endings: Happy, Unhappy, and Tragedy.

|ENDINGS| Happy > Unhappy > Tragedy

And only six paths to combine to achieve those endings:

1) “Rags to Riches” (rise – a rise in happiness),
2) “Tragedy”, or “riches to rags” (fall – a fall in happiness),
3) “Man in a hole” (fall–rise),
4) “Icarus” (rise–fall),
5) “Cinderella” (rise–fall–rise)
6) “Oedipus” (fall–rise–fall)

|PLOTS | Fall-Rise-Fall < Fall-Rise < Fall < |STATE| > Rise > Rise-Fall > Rise-Fall-Rise.

And a number of ( … )

So our language consists of not much more than the names (references) and changes in state of some set of marginally indifferent constant relations, using some combination of physical, emotional, and intellectual senses.

And we can create increasingly complex words that themselves constitute micro-paradigms. And in doing so weave together extraordinarily complex sets of categories, relations, changes in state – where one of those changes in state is our ‘value’ – generally expressed as an emotional response.

A History


A Narration

( … )

A Description

( … )


A Testimony provides a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit. A testimony answers questions of liability against falsehood.

Testimonial or Complete Science – operationalism.

Ordinary Language

( … )


A Traditional Order of Habits (or group evolutionary strategy) provides a group with an evolutionary strategy necessary for survival and in the world and competition against others with different strategies. They consist at least, in a portfolio of metaphysical value judgments and carriers (users) of these habits rarely if ever understand or are even aware of, alternatives to these prejudices.


A Normative Order of Habits provides a group with means of preserving the traditional order within the current demographic, social, economic, political, and military context. This set of habits need not be understood, coherent, rationally articulated but merely practiced. They consist, at least, in manners, ethics, morals, and laws.

– MARKET, TRADITION, NORM, HABIT consist of … (Demonstrated results…)

Laws: Commands, Legislations

5) A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence.

Natural Law

( … )

(Record of conflicts settled…)

– NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.

A Discipline or Field of Study (Network of Paradigms)

4) A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy.

A specialization in the division of labor in the market for the production of knowledge. (usually a difference in operations and scale)


Science, Physical Science, or Empiricism (deflation) of imagination, but absent operations.

(Search for Laws(avgs) and Operations(causes))

A Science provides a CRITICAL means of decidability across all domains regardless of convention, interest or preference (Philosophy, Norm, Religion, or Ideology). A Science relies in the very least, upon tests of:

Under Propertarianism (Testimonialism) it must also include tests of

And we require limits.

– A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words.


Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, Protocols

(… )


Algorithms, Accounting, Mathematics, and Logic

Algorithms (Processes)

Accounting (Transactions)

Mathematics (Measurements)

– MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions.

The Logics (words)

A proof of possibility by construction.

( … )

A proof of internal consistency

( … )

– A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.)

The Logics. We use the word logic ‘loosely’, I have to get across the difference between the multiple uses of the term:

The Rationalisms (Justificationisms)

Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism.

The empiricist view holds that all ideas come to us a posterior through experience; either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. The empiricist essentially believes that knowledge is based on or derived directly from experience.

The rationalist believes we come to knowledge a priori – through the use of logic – and is thus independent of sensory experience.

Rationalism consists of adopting one of these three claims

  1. The Intuition/Deduction Thesis,
  2. The Innate Knowledge Thesis, or
  3. The Innate Concept Thesis.

In addition, rationalists can choose to adopt the claims of Indispensability of Reason and or the Superiority of Reason – although one can be a rationalist without adopting either thesis.

Logic (formal grammar of decidability)

Logic, via-positiva, consists of the use of deflation, organization, and competition to test the survivability of statements) which ( scientifically), consists in the preservation of constant relations in the differences in dimensions available to human action, perception, and experience.

Those constant relations are possible because of a deterministic (non-random) universe – at least at various scales. Conversely, via-negativa, we can say that the function of logic is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, assumption of knowledge, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit from our free associations.

Which I’m sure is a mouthful.

A logic requires at least:

Arbitrary(Normative) or Descriptive(Necessary)?

Is a logic – a means of preserving constant relations – Axiomatic and Arbitrary in a Meaningful Paradigm,? Or is it Natural Law and Correspondent in an Existential Paradigm?

If descriptive, what dimensions of reality can we identify?

A Formal Logic. (I’m going to define formal logic as a dimensionally limited grammar – a grammar which limits vocabulary by limiting semantics).

 Formal logic consists of the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property.

In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.

We can identify at least two uses of formal logic:

To interpret legal precedent or legislation without return to the legislature or judge of record – in which case, again, the construction of said sentences constituted a failure of the authors to produce grammatically complete sentences – or the attempt by prosecutor, defense, and judge to create new law.

To interpret Scripture or other Wisdom Literature under the pretext that it consists of law, history, or science, or any kind of truth – in which case, like interpreting the law, we see only a failure of the authors to produce grammatically complete sentences, open to current knowledge, and we seek to create what is not there.

To construct deceptions by appeals to authority by making use of the ignorance of the audience, the malice of the interpreter, and, once again, the failure of the authors to produce grammatically complete sentences (and paragraphs).

Much of our time will be spent falsifying and replacing the ….

Symbolic logic consists of the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic. We can think of modal and propositional logic as …..

 Mathematical logic consists in of extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.”—

 A Turing, Programmatic, or Algorithmic Logic: The addition of control structure differentiates programmatic logic from mathematical logic. As a consequence the problem of closure increases by the addition of the halting problem.

 Logic of Language: The study of the rules of language, the rules of logic and the rules of grammar, and how grammar and syntax function to produce logical statements for the simple reason that what we think of as logic – differences, within a sentence – is reasonably intuitive to us, even if that logic fails us in the comprehension of arguments (and deceits).

Syntax is the study of sentences and their structure, and the constructions within sentences. Syntax tells us what goes where in a sentence. Grammar is the general term referring to the set of rules in a given language including syntax , morphology, phonology, while syntax studies sentence structures.

My preference would be to improve clarity, by redefining grammar as phonology(sounds) and morphology (words), and Syntax for Sentences. So that I could speak of Vocabulary and Syntax. (hmmm….)   Because a language consists of vocabulary consisting of morphology and phonology, organized into sentences through syntax. (hmmm….)

Modal Logic – we can think of as the symbolic logic of grammar – qualification or refinement. I think of it as the logic of verb properties.

 To discover the operations and therefore universal grammar of human beings through analysis of language. In this sense, the study of such grammars constitutes an investigatory cognitive science.

I rely on cognitive science, (neural networks and the structure of the brain) for most of my work. And so I see logic as nothing more than our ability to determine differences. But when those differences are organized into a language we develop this wonderful thing called grammar: the organization of the flow of information between individuals according to predictable rules.

Language is an interesting problem because it’s serialized and very parsimonious and informationally dense, even if it can easily informationally imprecise, ranging from burdensome low context and high precision, to lazy high context and low precision. Yet our minds produce a continuous stream of possibilities that we must transform into that which can be communicated serially in speech.

Investigation of the brain: The use of language to study of cognitive ability of the human brain – and perhaps all brains, given the vocabulary, and the grammatical and syntactical rules the speaker is capable of.

Investigation of reality: The use of language, including semantics (meaning), vocabulary , grammar, phonology, morphology and syntax to investigate reality. This is the ‘verbal’ and primacy of reason strategy. And it is in contrast with the scientific and engineering investigation of reality, by investigation of actions.

As we will see later on when we discuss the table of grammars, the various disciplines all have produced deflated vocabularies, deflationary grammar, and syntax that identifiably if not predictably reflect reality. Conversely, there exist some disciplines that reflect only fictions. And not surprisingly, those fictions exist largely in the pseudosciences we refer to as social science. So as an empirical judgment it is very hard to suggest that these grammars are fictional or arbitrary, and very difficult to deny that our language – at least Germanic languages – reflect and therefore allow us to represent the various dimensions of reality.

As a side note, I was fairly hostile to the philosophy of language producing any result until I’d read kripke. And I have found that language does reflect reality – because cognitive science, analysis of language, and physical science have shown me so. But because I am principally concerned with the elimination of error, bias, and especially deceit, leaving us only truthful voluntary cooperation and exchange, I remain hostile to it for empirical reasons. Which is the next topic (empirical differences).

Empirical difference between the two …..

Informal Logic: The use of Vocabulary, Grammar, Logic(Logic Cognitive Bias, and Fallacy), Correspondence, Ethics, Morality and Rhetoric for the production and falsification of arguments.

 –“Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive – on some conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all.”—

Type Situation Arguers’ Goal Dialogue Goal
Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Test a Hypo-


Information Need Information Acquire Info Exchange Info
Education Transfer Info Shared Understanding
Justification Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide Action
Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
Negotiation Search for common Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
Prosecution Conflict in Fact Expose the other Party Cessation, Punishment or restitution
Testimony Warranty of Due Diligence against conflict Obtain and preserve unearned premium or discount Elimination of retaliation, punishment, restitution via truth
Deception Reciprocity, Conflict, Punishment Avoidance Fraud Deceive via falsehood
Distribution Undermine Opponents interests Poisoning the well Opportunity for increase in conflict
Eristic Avoid argument Attack an Opponent, or interests Preserve Conflict

Table 1 Table of Dialog Conditions and Goals


The Problem of Closure: There Isn’t Any.

Closure. Close or Not Closed (Open). The question of closure. Given a set S, grammar G, and set of operations O, all operations O in that grammar G, upon that set S, will produce a member of that set S in grammar G.   In formal logic, it refers to that output set that can be deduced from the given input set. For reasons I won’t go into here, very few systems of operations and values are closed. In fact, only the most reductive (simple) systems can be.

Closure is important for at least these six reasons.

  1. that arguments or proofs in any simple system (sets, grammar, and operations) must be solved by appeal to a containing system (sets, grammar, and operations) – or rather system using more information than available in the current system. You will see me use the problem of closure to explain testimonial truth, and to undermine philosophical rationalism, just as we have undermined theological rationalism.
  2. That closure creates one form of symmetry (shape), but that all sets of operations on all sets produce symmetries because of the variations in the sets, and variations in the possible combinations of operations.
  3. Language is not closed. I hate this non operational term, but “discrete infinity” refers to the property of such things as language to produce an infinite set of discrete sound combinations – at least within sets of paradigmatic assumptions about the world.
  4. That the mind is able to identify symmetries, and produce paradigms, of ever increasing scales, as long as those scales are reducible – even if thru training – to an analogy to experience that are commensurable within our senses, and where we can compare differences and therefore make decisions with.
  5. As such while the set of operations possible within the physical universe is limited, there is no limit to what man can understand through the creating of disciplines (paradigms) of commensurability.
  6. And the principle problem in our development is limiting the difference between our cognitive biases and the state of our knowledge, and those symmetry’s for which we can produce paradigms that are possible and or useful within the universe. But otherwise our ability to understand and manipulate the universe is limited only by our ability to develop means of harnessing the energy to take actions that produce transformations.

Knowledge is never closed because of the cognitive window of action at any given scale of knowledge. As such, Language is never closed. It may be true that we can know the full set of operations possible in the existing universe at each cumulative scale. But, assuming we possess the ability to harness increasing scales of energy, then what we might be able to construct in this universe through though physical, intuitionistic, rational, calculative, and computational means is …. As far as I can tell, not closed.

What is closed, and what is measurable, is the information necessary to cause change in state in the human mind. I am not quite sure, but Nassim Taleb seems to have been struggling to discover this value, although, like me, he has finally come around to warranty rather than measurement – and I think the search is futile at any scale other than the one he has already produced (meaning, logarithmic or big, and therefore economically impossible) if for no other reason than the information sets available to us are not sufficient. Yet when we develop general artificial intelligence we will develop some measure or other of that information. If I had another life to live I might work on that problem. It’s interesting.

So while the volume of information necessary for humans to identify opportunities for changes in state may remain constant, the use of increasingly complex concepts preserves that ability regardless of scale. More on this later.

As such, it is not clear that we will experience any ‘limit’ to cognition as long as – like every other scale of the universe – new symmetries (meaning objects of consideration) never cease to emerge.


Fields, Symmetries, and Generations

Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of :

1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1).

Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of:

2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4),

10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1).

The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve.

We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs:

Even + Even = Even,

Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd,

Odd + Odd = Even,

Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even,

Odd x Odd = Odd.

(… geometric, scalar vectors … from every point, infinite points….)

And we can produce the same set of results with any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set; including the set of Ordinary Language using ordinary language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite.

So any grammar applied to a set, allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of results.

In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members.

So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.


Now those ‘holes’ in the distribution are not constructible with the set and operations available to us. So, not everything can be described using the set with the available operations in every grammar. Conversely, we can create a set of operations describing those symmetries (patterns), whether we are referring to holes or densities.

There are things we cannot say then. But by and large, nearly anything we can say that consists of constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, is possible to say – if we possess the knowledge. And conversely: that which does not consist of constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action can be said but not said constructively: meaning operationally. So that is why people resort to those terms that are not operational: to compensate for your lack of knowledge, to compensate for their lack of knowledge, to levy pretense of knowledge when they do not possess it, or to deceive despite possessing that knowledge.


|Estimating| Description > Deduction > Induction > Abduction > Guessing > Free Association.

In fact, the virtue of fields is that they assist us in finding those symmetries – albeit with a lot of work. That’s because some results are neither constructible or deducible from a construction, except by via-negativa trial and error.

(Limits of Deduction)

Symmetries as Externalities

In most if not all of these sets, we will discover symmetries (patterns), including patterns of density and patterns of emptiness, and then patterns of relations between those patterns.

These holes and densities consist of the consequences of the operations we performed on the set of references we’ve chosen. So, for example, when we make purchases with money, and observe the resulting financial and economic data, there are patterns within the consequences of the operation we call ‘exchange’ of the set ‘goods and services’. Those consequences appear as patterns in the financial and economic data – as a pattern of holes, distributions, and densities, that we call price, volume, profit, and loss.

And so for the sake of discussion, I’m going to adopt the term externalities from the discipline of economics to describe those unintended or accidental patterns that emerge from the operations we call ‘transactions’ on the set of ‘goods, services and information’. Meaning that Externalities consist of Symmetries produced by our economic cooperation.

It’s these externalities (for example, losses, and profits) that as a consequence determine the behavior of businesses, then industries, then markets – not the individual transactions.

The Natural World: Generations of Operations

At this moment we do not yet understand the fundamental Forces of the universe. But we have discovered a set of the fundamental Particles that those forces produce. And, of those particles that have mass, we have a fairly deep understanding of the Elements (Matter) in the periodic table of elements, that those particles that have mass produce. We have at least scratched the surface of the Molecules that those elements can combine produce. We have barely scratched the surface of the Organic Molecules that those elements can produce. We have only recently begun to understand how those molecules construct organs of Life. We increasingly understand how RNA and DNA construct life forms, although the complexity of that process is so vast that we can spot only correlations not yet operations. It is questionable how much we understand of sentience and consciousness or speech processing, but an understanding of reason, calculation and computation are available through introspection.

Universe > Forces > Particles > Elements > Molecules > Organic Molecules > Life(cells) > Sentience > Consciousness > Speech > Reason > Calculation > Computation


Assumptions (Metaphysics) > Psychology (Acquisition) > Sociology(Cooperation) > ( Norms > Traditions > Laws) > Markets > Informal Institutions > Politics(formal institutions) > Education(Religion) > Group Strategy(War)

At each stage of complexity, some set of possible operations produces potentials (densities) for yet another set of possible operations, as well as weaker distributions and holes that do not provide opportunities for yet another set of operations. So for the sake of our discussion we’re going to refer to each stage as an Operational Generation.

Operational Generations as Disciplines

The various Sciences (disciplines) mirror these Operational Generations. Each discipline seeks to discover the operations and sets (objects, states) that complete the grammar of the discipline. (Categories, properties, relations, values, and Operations, and Externalities (Symmetries)).

Commensurability Across Grammars

Unfortunately, some of these disciplines are very old – like mathematics – and some are quite new – like genetics. Some are fairly scientific (chemistry most of all) and some are merely storytelling if not outright deceits (psychology and sociology). In mathematics we find archaic (supernatural) terms left over from Mathematical Platonism. In the sciences we use awkward non-operational names for phenomenon and processes – often peoples names. In economics we use the term ‘rents and rent-seeking’ for what is a form of parasitism or corruption. In psychology and sociology the terms are by and large no better than fairy tale fictions with no basis in science whatsoever.

By converting the terminology in each discipline to purely operational prose, we create commensurability across disciplines. And with that commensurability we can rapidly improve the ease of learning them. We can identify that which they claim to understand but do not. And identify what they claim that is outright false.


Operational grammar leaves holes.



Continuous recursive disambiguation resulting in a series of transactions, culminating in a contract for meaning.


In this era, as in prior eras, the world has been converging on common weights and measures: the common languages of science, of technology, of business, of contract of accounting rules, a common trade law – at least at the international level of cooperation. The current financial system of fiat money, central banks, and reserves, allows relative commensurability of worldwide trade.

However, those convergences tend to occur both within and across commercial and legal fields, but only within fields – thereby preserving incommensurability of language across all fields. And within fields they converge on old habits that preserve obscurant language.



Psychology (acquisitionism)

Sociology (propertarianism)


Law (Natural law of reciprocity)

Politics (the production of commons)

Strategy (group competitive strategy)

Religion ( production of commensurability)


Current knowledge ….. my understanding…..

Constant vs contingent vs inconsistent vs non-relations.

Recursive Continuous Disambiguation vs Scale of Set of Constant Relations(density)

Cumulation of association vs falsification of associations

Computational efficiency.

State Persistence vs breadth search, vs depth search

We cannot know the intelligence of distant ancestors.

Planning a series of steps in sequence must emerge – which requires recursion.

Consciousness must emerge, meaning, the ability to compare states.

Cooperation must emerge, meaning, the ability to empathize with intent.

At some point we must develop sufficient computational ability to manipulate our bodies in some way that allows for unambiguous communication, or a means of continuous disambiguation, that is fast enough for one another to make use of in real time, and easy enough for one another to retain.

And at some point, given sufficient computational ability, memory, and state persistence independent of recursion, language must emerge.

At some point the value of such communication much be such that the cost of it is offset by the rewards of it.

And we should see a cliff in history where there is a dramatic change when we did develop those abilities. And we do see it – rather recently.

But language requires a system of measurement. The system of measurement is limited by our senses. And as such meaning refers to a set of measurements, eventually reducible to analogies to human experience.

So while semantic content (measurements) must vary from species to species, grammar (continuous recursive disambiguation) should be universal in the sense that it varies predictably with computational abilities.

We can understand a child, a person with 60IQ, 70IQ and so on, up to 200+ IQ. But as far as I can tell the set of measurements (basis of semantics) remain the same, and all that changes is the scope of the state persisted, the depth of recursion, and the density and distance of relations, and the ability to model (forecast). In other words, simple people are in fact simply ‘more simple’ in the density of content of their semantics, use of grammar, and models (Stories) that they can construct with them.

So universal grammar as a set of computational minimums and efficiencies, should always exist, and human universal grammar as universal grammar limited to human measurements (semantics), does exist. And any organism with sufficient computational (neural) capacity, should develop some means of communication using some variation of universal grammar, and some sense-perception – action dependent semantics.

6. Decidability

by Luke Weinhagen

1. Decidability facilitates the defining of limits.

2. The defining of limits facilitates the discovery of full accounting.

3. The discovery of full accounting facilitates the enforcement of reciprocity.

4. The enforcement of reciprocity facilitates the suppression of parasitism.

  1. Truth

( … )

8. Testimony

Apr 30, 2020, 8:47 AM

—“Hey Curt, I just listened to episode 2 of the choice. I was incredibly impressed at how much knowledge you have and how well you articulate it, you are talking about complex thoughts and ideas with the ease of someone speaking informally with a friend. … I would equate it to watching a musician who’s a master of their instrument playing incredibly complex music with ease. …. Also i was happy that, after following your fb page for a short while, i was able to follow along and understand all the content (bar getting a bit lost/confused when you were speaking about mathematics and geometry, but i understood the point regarding mysticism in the field). …. Anyways I will be following and supporting going forward and also spreading the word to people over here as i see fit.”—-

9. Due Diligence


Science: A Warranty of Due Diligence

SCIENCE: The use of logical and physical instrumentation for the purpose of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, Fictionalism and deceit from our free-associations by the systematic deflation and attempted falsification (survival) from criticism in eight dimensions of actionable reality: categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted including scope and limits – and coherent across those dimensions.

Science is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully:

— We test our categories using differences to eliminate conflation.

— We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency.

— We test our observations with external correspondence.

— We test the existence of our premises with operations.

— We test the rationality and volition of choice through sympathy

— We test the reciprocity and volition of choice through changes in capital

— We test the scope of our theory with falsifications.

Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm.

The central argument regarding truth:

1) That in order to cooperate, humans evolved sympathy for intent – and are marginally indifferent in their judgment of intentions. This allows us to sympathetically test most human incentives if subject to the same stimuli (information). It is also why juries can functions, since this sympathetic testing of intentions is the criteria by which juries render decisions.

2) That however, we cannot sympathize with the first principles of the physical universe – the equivalent of intentions. So while we intuit and can test man’s intentions, we cannot measure and test the universe’s first principles. As such, the best we can do is testify to observations and measurements of those phenomenon until at some point we know those first principles – if that is ever possible.

3) But our observations must also be reduced to stimuli that can be sympathetically tested by others, and insulated from our deception, bias and error.

4) We call this process ‘science’, but the practice of science is little more than a set of moral rules that instruct us as to how to eliminate deception, bias and error. The scientific method then, is merely a moral discipline: the means by which we struggle to speak the truth, as truthfully as we may possibly accomplish given the frailty of our reason.

5) That giving witness to one’s observations, is testable by reproduction of a set of operational definitions. That operational definitions produce the equivalent of names, just as positional numbering provides quantities with names. Such names are insulated from deception, distraction, loading, framing and overloading. Theories are not. While we cannot demonstrate the absolute parsimony of a theory (that we know of), we can demonstrate that we truthfully conveyed our observations. In other words, we can testify truthfully to an ordered set of facts, even if we cannot testify truthfully to parsimony of a theory.

6) That it is possible to state instead that all outputs of scientific investigation are truthful, if they are truthfully represented – where ‘scientific investigation” refers to the use of the scientific method, regardless of field of inquiry. But that we seek the most parsimonious statement of a theory, and we can never know that we have obtained it, we can only develop consensus that we cannot cause it to fail. This is, as far as I know, the best non-platonic description of truth available. Everything else is a linguistic contrivance for one purpose or another – possibly to obscure ignorance, and possibly to load ideas with moral motivation. Scientists load their contrivance of truth, and mathematicians load their contrivance of numbers, limits, and a dozen other things – most of which obscure linguistic ‘cheats’ to give authority to that which is necessary for the construction of general rules. (ie: the problem of arbitrary precision).

7) That Popper did no investigation into science or the history of science prior to making his argument, and that as yet, we do not have a systematic account of the history of science. However, what history we do have, both distant and recent, is that science operates by criticism upon failure, where failure is demonstrated by via overextension of the theory.

8) The reason for overextension rather than criticism as the operational preference being that it is economically inefficient (expensive) to pursue criticism rather than to extend a theory to its point of failure then criticize it. And as far as we know, this is how science functions in practice, and must work, because it is how all human endeavors must work. Because while a small number of scientists may seek the ‘truth’ (or whatever a Platonist means by it), what scientists try to do is solve problems – i.e. to manufacture recipes for useful cognition.

9) Popper’s advice was merely moral given that the scope of inquiry in all human fields had surpassed that of human scale, where tests are subjectively verifiable. (I think this is an important insight because it occurred in all fields.) Einstein for example, operationalized observations (relative simultaneity for example) over very great distances approaching the speed of light using Lorenz transformations. And as Bridgman demonstrated, the reason Einstein’s work was novel was because prior generations had NOT been operationalizing statements ,and as such, more than a generation and perhaps two were lost to failure of what should have been an obvious solution. (See the problem of length, which I tend to refer to often as the best example.) I addressed this in a previous post, and what popper did was give us good advice, and while he made an argument that appears logical, like most rational arguments, unsupported by data, it is not clear he was correct, and in fact, it appears that he was not. The question is not a rational but empirical one. (Note: I seek to codify this moral insight into law. Thus ending all deception by not only Fictionalism, but all other means.)

10) Popper unlike Misesian Pseudoscience, or Rothbardian Immoral Verbalisms, was engaged in a moral attempt both in politics and in science, and perhaps in science as a vehicle for politics, to prevent the pseudoscientific use of science – particularly by fascist and communists, to use the findings of science as a replacement for divine authority by which to command man. What popper did, particularly with his Platonism, was to remove the ability for the findings of science to be used as justification for the removal of human choice. Popper, Mises, and Hayek were responsible for undermining pseudoscientific authoritarianism. Of the three Popper is perhaps less articulate (possibly to obscure his objective), but certainly not wrong, so to speak. While Mises’ appeal to authoritarianism (which is part and parcel of his Jewish culture) was entirely pseudoscientific, by claiming that economics was deductive rather than empirical, and justifying it under a priorism, instead of as I’ve stated, understanding that he was merely trying to apply operationalism to economic activity, which would merely demonstrate that Keynesian economics was immoral and deterministic, not unscientific.

11) But Popper, Mises, Hayek, Bridgman and Brouwer, did not find a solution to restoring the western aristocratic conditions for public speech. They too were a lost in Platonism a bit. Bridgman and Brouwer did understand that something was wrong, and were very close, but they could not make the moral argument. We have had a century now of attacks by verbal contrivance and we can demonstrate the destruction of our civilization by way of it. So the moral argument is no longer one of undemonstrated results. WE have the results. And we have a generation of men, myself included, trying to repair it.

One must speak truthfully, because no other truth is knowable. Intellectual products that are brought to market must be warrantied just as are all other products that are brought to market, and the warranty that you can provide is operational definitions (recipes, experience), not theories (psychologism, projections). And if you are not willing to stand behind your product then you should not bring it to market. Because you have no right to subject others to harm.

Intellectuals produce ideas (myself included), that is our product. We are paid in measly terms most of the time, for our product, but that is what we do. But it is no different from serving too-hot coffee or selling dangerous ladders, or manufacturing defective gas tanks – intellectuals do plenty of harm in history. Perhaps the most harm of all. Between Abraham, Paul of Tarsus and the Byzantine Emperors, Mohammed and his real author,; Marx, Boaz, and Freud, it is hard to envision any worse catastrophe perpetrated by man.



Why is it that the informational commons, and by consequence the political and normative commons, are not – in an age of information – as subject to warranty and liability as pollution or harm to physical commons, life, body, and private property?

Truthfulness – testimony that has been subject to due diligence – is a non trivial cost. And economists are too happy (as it appears all social scientists have been) to produce defective products for personal gains, without the warranty that all other products have been subject to.

Why is it that free speech is not limited to free truthful speech? After all, the cost of producing truthful scientific testimony under due diligence and warranty is much higher than the cost of producing untruthful pseudoscientific testimony without due diligence or warranty. Doesn’t mere free speech without warranty of due diligence of truthfulness construct an impossibility under which the production of high cost truth and the production of low cost fantasy, bias, error and deceit must eventually win?

There is a great difference between the terms “empirical” (observable and measurable) and “scientific” of which empirical criticism is but a minor subset of the criterion necessary for the production of warranty of due diligence against fantasy, bias, error, and deceit.

We have had a century of economists running with intellectual scissors, causing inter-temporal externalities of profound consequence. And the Cosmopolitan (freshwater) rationalist’s justification of priors is only more visible than the mainstream Anglo empirical (Saltwater), justification of priors under the pseudoscience of Rawlsian Justificationism – itself a fascinating example of the logically impossible, yet pervasively persuasive.

So just as all enlightenment adaptations were plagued with errors – Anglo, French, German and Jewish – both freshwater and saltwater economics are plagued with pseudoscience. The freshwater try to justify objective morality, by argumentative construction (pseudoscience), and the saltwater try to justify immorality by intentionally failing to account for profound normative, institutional, civilizational, and genetic consequences (pseudoscience).

So it’s one thing for all of us to point the finger of the accusation of pseudoscience one place or another. But it is quite another to realize that the minute you draw the lens of truth upon either freshwater or saltwater economics, you will discover that both are pseudosciences that merely confirm ideological priors.


In the last century intellectuals tried and failed to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. They couldn’t do it.

What I’ve done, because I’ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning that which is existentially possible to construct through a series of operations is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibility, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.


Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.


He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.

Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:

1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs. Justificationism (excuses)

2) Critical Rationalism: we can know what is false but not what is true.

3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.

4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test

5) That science, by verisimilitude (markets), is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.


Unempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.

Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.

Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.

Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. (Rather than the competition between consistency, correspondence, completeness, and coherence.)

Verisimilitude: (Rather than Markets.) Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.

Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)


The Epistemological Cycle …

Problem -> Theory -> Test

… is incomplete.

The complete epistemological cycle is:

Perception(Chaotic) ->

…Opportunity (Free Association) ->

……Hypothesis (way-finding) ->

………Criticism(individual investment) ->

…………Theory (outputs a recipe/opportunity narrative) ->

……………Social Criticism (market investment) ->

………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->

…………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->

……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )


This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:

1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)

2 – Question (Problem)

3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! )

………..way-finding (criticism) / Hypothesis.

Way-finding is a form of criticizing an idea.

………..criticism / theory / personal use

………..testing / law / general use

………..recognition / survival / universal use

………..identity / tautology / integration into world view.


The Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (falsification) of our free associations.



3) A Priori: Or, “independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to claims of an a priori truth claim:

  1. i) A priori vs. A posteriori,
  2. ii) Analytic vs. Synthetic, and

iii) Necessity vs. Contingency

Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: “2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.”

(b) Synthetic A Priori : “Increasing money increases inflation.”

(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no grandchildren.”

(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers (ideals)

(a) identity (numbers)

(b) logical (sets)

(c) empirical (ratios)

(d) existential (constructible)

Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality

(a) point

(b) line

(c) shape

(d) object

(e) time (change)

(f) relative change

Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)

(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)

(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)

(d) Existential: (operational consistency)

(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)(time)

(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between actors) (relative change)

Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible).

The test of speech then consists of dimensional deflation and spoken conflation into parsimonious testimony:

1 – Identity tests categories – differences (deflation)

2 – Logic tests internal consistency – membership (deflation)

3 – Empirical actions test correspondence – measurement (deflation)

4 – Operational Language tests existential possibility (deflation)

5 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation)

6 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation)

7 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation)

8 – Narrative by analogy to perception describes reality – coherence (total consistency) (conflation)

Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity, and scope.

We test statements about the world by deflating each dimension and testing each for consistency.

Each sub dimension can only be tested by use of the next dimension.

The only native skill we possess is the test of “differences”. Because our brains use samples of inputs in combination with memory to predict results and alert us through new stimulation to the differences.

Our brains sample senses, provide certain services, the hierarchical (distilled) result of which are combined (conflated) through memory and backward propagation into ‘experience’.

It turns out that except in rare cases we ‘experience’ a fairly accurate model of the physical world – but an absurdly inaccurate model of the social world, and completely nonsensical model of our personal value to that world. All of which are precisely what is necessary to survive as sentient (feeling of changes in state) and conscious (self aware) life form when possessed of uncomfortable knowledge in a universe of consistent risk.

This is a simple way of explaining Hume, Kant, and the Phenomenologists.



Ergo, while one can claim the tautological truth (the Analytic A Priori), and one can claim the ideal(logical) truth (the Necessary Synthetic A Priori), one cannot ever know the non-tautological(identity, The Synthetic A Priori), non-ideal(Contingent Synthetic A Priori ) truth, because we rarely possess sufficient information to do so. As such there is a vast difference between an a priori rule of thumb, and a …..


What does this mean? It means that we can deduce from Analytic A Priori and Necessary Synthetic A Priori, but we cannot deduce from General Synthetic A Priori, or Contingent Synthetic A Priori Statements because we cannot know if such deductions are true (for specific cases).

So the problem with making a priori claims in economics is that you can say statements about statements but not about consequences in reality. You can only say ‘all other things being equal’, we should observe this effect. You cannot say, “we will always observe this effect’. Or even that the effect will appear in the given circumstance. Why? Because we don’t always observe such effects, and economics is rife with examples, the most commonly cited being unemployment does not necessarily increase, and prices are sticky – and for good reason.

The innovation that Menger brought to the table was to bring the principle of relative change from calculus to economics. The principle contribution of Hayek was to transform the use of materials to the use of information as the model for all social phenomenon. The principle contribution of Popper was to bring the information model to philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of science and to model scientific investigation on a market. This followed the transition in physics from the use of electromagnetic fields to that of information. Which then brought physics and mathematics into full correspondence.

What Hayek and popper and the Classicals and the Keynesians all missed and Brouwer in math, Bridgman in physics, and Mises in economics, and the entire analytic and continental movements missed was that man cannot make truth claims.

For example, we did not think the ideas of time(velocity of change), length(distance), and space(volume) varied. Einstein’s discovery was the same as Mises’, Brouwer’s and Bridgman’s: that all our pretense of axioms are false. If our idea of length and time can be false, every other idea that is obvious to our senses and reason can be false.

The difference between economics and physics is in

(a) volition vs. determinism

(b) reciprocity vs. transformation

(c) sympathetic testing of rational choice vs. entropy.

In simplest terms I translated Hoppe’s “Kantian Justificationism” into Anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of Praxeology that is the innovation.

The primary difference is that I show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract. Otherwise demand for authority increases, or retaliation increases, or trust and economic velocity decreases, and competitiveness decreases, with all instances of differences not resolvable under law.  

Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition. And this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy but with purely empirical natural law.

In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force.

So, while you cannot obtain borderland European liberty or separatist, ghetto, and borderland Jewish ‘liberty’, and if you want a condition of Anglo-Saxon liberty for the individual, it’s only possible if you create sovereignty in fact for the polity.

And the only way to create sovereignty and liberty is using (a) a militia, (b)natural law of reciprocity, (c) the markets that are made necessary by the natural law of reciprocity, (d) including the markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons production, polity production. And in order to do so you must produce a competitive market between the family(church/school), the commons (houses for each class), and judiciary (monarchy, judiciary, military).

In other words, by restoring the pre-revolutionary path, of Christian monarchies, and converting from mere common law, to strictly constructed judge discovered, law. And eliminating the parliament’s ability to create legislation and regulation – limiting them to contracts of the commons. And transforming the treasury into a purely empirical insurer of last resort for whom regulation is merely a matter of actuarial calculation.





Properly understood, the Scientific method, at least as practiced in the physical sciences, if extended to include tests of volition, reciprocity, and full accounting, serves as nothing more than a warranty of due diligence upon our speech about the world.

In other words, the scientific method demands due diligence in the distribution of information just as we demand due diligence in the market for goods and services, and claims about goods and services, by force of involuntary warranty.






(1) We can make:

(a) statements about experiences(metaphysical), or

(b) statements about statements(ideal), or

(c) statements about existential properties(existential/real), or

(d) statements about existential cause and effect(change).

(e) statements about volition



(2) No test of any dimension can be completed without appeal to the subsequent dimension. (i.e. Gödel. this is profoundly important. no dimension can provide a self-test.) Ergo, all speech is deflationary.


(3) All descriptive propositions of existential cause and effect (change) are contingent.


(4) The only method of decidability between two or more non-false cause and effect propositions(change) is cost. This is a clarification of Occam’s razor. And appears to be true, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the least cost method, and man generally chooses the least cost method – even if we cannot know the full causal density of his considerations.


(0) The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit from our statements about reality.


(5) The only method of making a truth claim is to perform due diligence in each dimension of reality (a ‘premise’ of the consequential dimension) applicable to the cause and effect phenomenon. (i.e. physical world can’t engage in rational choice, or voluntary exchanges)

Again, those dimensions are:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)

(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)

(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)

(d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object)

(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)

(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes)

(g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?)

(h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.)



(6) All propositions (facts, propositions, theories) must survive the markets for criticism at the observer-mental-testing, observer-action testing, market application testing, and market survival testing. In other words, the universal epistemological method follows this lifecycle:

(a) observation

(b) Free association (F -> observation)

(c) test of reasonability (F -> free association )

(d) Hypothesis

(e) Perform Due Diligence (a-h) above. (F -> free association )

(f) Theory

(g) Publish to the market for application

(h) Survival in the market for application(F ->observation – of failures )

(i) Law

(j) Survival in the market for refutation (F-> observation – of failures)

(k) Habituation into metaphysical assumptions


7) This epistemological process is universally applicable despite the fact that various results can be identified with it. Because just as we find prime numbers largely by trial and error we find special cases of statements by trial and error. But when we find these statements we have to ask ourselves what is it we are finding?

(a) Sensations: statements about experiences(metaphysical), or

(b) Logic(analytic): statements about statements(ideal), or

(c) Fact: statements about existential properties(existential/real), or

(d) Theory(Synthetic): statements about existential cause and effect(change).

(e) Morality: statements about volition

(f) Testimony: statements about the fully accounted change in state of a given instance of the statement we are making (I have a credit card report that shows John Doe, on 1/1/2018 at 4:06:32 exchanged $2.00 for a Hershey’s candy bar at Don’s newspaper stand then existing on 225th and Main in Cityname.”)


The most common special cases that we find are those that are impossible to contradict at the same dimension. (a,b,c,d,e) above.

(a) Sense(Metaphysics): we cannot sense a ball is green and red all over at the same time.

(b) Logic: If I issue credit on fractional reserves, I will increase the supply of money.

(c) Fact: The differences between commodity money and note money include but are not limited to: liquidity, demand, exchange fee or interest gain, portability(weight/volume), reserve risk, vendor risk.

(d) Theory: All other things being equal, if we increase the supply of money, prices will eventually increase accordingly and lower the purchasing power of payments against debts.

(e) Morality: All other things being equal, when we force majoritarian decisions on the polity by using representative democracy, we create a monopoly out of the market for the commons, and eliminate the possibility of cooperating on means even if we pursue different ends.



Polities can generally use this series of levers to affect the economy.

-Near Term-

(a) Monetary Policy

(b) Fiscal Policy (Spending)

-Medium Term-

(c) Trade Policy (import export policies, foreign trade policies)

(d) Regulatory/Legislative Policy (also includes price controls etc)

(e) Immigration-Deportation policy / Expand military, WPA etc.

-Long Term-

(f) Human Capital Policy (Education policy)

(g) Institutional Policy (laws, regulations, bureaucracies, institutions, banks)

(h) Strategic (military) Policy

Part 3


1. Government and Law 

Part 4  – The Organization of Institutions of Cooperation

HERE: Demand For Government (differences)
( … )

HERE: Scale of Polity and Scale of Government

( … )



Rule of Law, Market Government, Market Economy,

Public Investment Public Reward

Definitions that Prevent Lying in Political Discourse

RULE OF LAW means the absence of human discretion over other humans, other than in restitution for harms, by the demand for individual sovereignty in his control of his demonstrated investments, reciprocity insurance of others’ sovereignty, and fully informed, productive, voluntary, reciprocal exchange with other sovereigns, free of imposition upon the demonstrated intersets of sovereigns external to the exchange, producing markets in all aspects of life, including association, cooperation, production-distribution-trade, reproduction-marriage, the production of commons and the outsized returns therefrom, the productions of a government for the production, administration, and defense of commons, and the production and execution of war.

MIXED ECONOMY means borrowing by the state, taking risks for having done so, to make investments by the state that are impossible for groups of individuals, that capture returns for the state that are redistributed to citizens (commons holders), and borrowing by individuals sharing the risk with one another, to make investments by individuals in investments not requiring the scale of the state, ….

DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM (Mixed Economy Bias) means within rule of law, borrowing by individuals from one another, sharing the risk with one another, to make investments by individuals on behalf of one another, that capture returns for those individuals, that are retained by individuals (shareholders).

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM (Mixed Economy Bias) means within rule of law, borrowing by the state from itself, with the state taking the risk of having done so, to make investments by the state, that capture returns for the state, that are redistributed to the citizens (commons holders).




CONSERVATIVE means evidentiary with warranty in pursuit of capitalization, in exchange for eugenics: The Masculine Reproductive Strategy of Reciprocity.


PROGRESSIVE means promissory without warranty, in pursuit of consumption and dysgenics: The Feminine Reproductive Strategy of Proportionality.

AUTHORITARIANISM means taking from individuals groups or organizations, for any purpose, including

ARISTOCRACY means (creating markets using Rule of Law)

NATIONALISM  means rule of law



The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local …

… rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption …

… and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by …

… permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in.

The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense.

Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts …

… the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt.

So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through …

… redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers.

This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress …

… new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them.

In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity …

… whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons.

Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff.

Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, …

… and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it.

I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste.

That’s why no one has or does.

I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior …

… not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.



Rule of Discretion

Rule of Law

Rule of Theocracy


You Don’t Need to “Believe” the Law

People don’t have to believe in or agree with the Law. They just need to avoid it. They don’t need to be trained. Or educated. Incentives ripple through the economy and polity almost instantaneously. All that is required is incentive to report violations, and any violation of reciprocity that exposes anyone to risk provides incentive.



A “right” is a claim against other members of a contract, wherein each party grants the other party something (a right) in exchange for somthing else (an obligation). Each person then has ‘rights’ as agreed upon in the contract, as well as obligations. This is the meaning of the term ‘right’. A right is something that you obtain from others in exchange for granting them something. There is no other logical meaning of the term, unless you invent a god or demon, or some equivalent that you are supposedly in contract with. (Although the term ‘right’ is abused by way of analogy and metaphor, which I will explain below.)

A contract can be discreetly created, such as a handshake, a promise, or an agreement. Or a contract can be written as a note, a written contract, or a constitution. A contract can be created by habituation as a “norm”, such as manners, ethics and morals.

While very few people understand this, ethical and moral statements are those that compensate for asymmetry of information between members of a contract for norms. This contract for norms is we call a society. Manners are promises that you will respect ethical and moral norms. Ethics are rules that we follow to make sure that there are no involuntary transfers of property due to asymmetry of information in an exchange. Morals are general rules that we will follow to make sure there are no involuntary transfers from others who are outside (external to) any action or exchange. (Having a chid that you cannot pay for, and expecting others to support it, is an involuntary transfer from others. That is why it’s generally been considered immoral.)

One can voluntarily enter discreet contracts. But normative contracts are a necessity because people cannot peacefully and productively cooperate without them. One can generally move between groups with different normative contracts (societies, and communities) but it is all but impossible to avoid them entirely, and it is entirely impossible to exist in a community without adhering to that contract – usually people are excluded from opportunity, punished, imprisoned, ostracized, or deported, for violations of the normative contract.

Some contract rights are both necessary for humans to engage in contracts, and possible to grant in contracts. Such as surrendering our opportunity for violence theft and fraud, from those with whom we are in contract. If we surrender our opportunity to use violence theft and fraud, we define this set of forgone opportunities “property rights’. Because these rights are necessary for peaceful cooperation, and necessary for contracts to function, we call these necessary rights ‘Natural Rights’ – in an effort to limit the ability of governments to violate the contract rights that are necessary for human cooperation when they make laws.

If we define our minds and bodies as our property. And we define those objects, that we freely obtained through exchange as our property, then there is only one natural right and that is property. It is the only right necessary, and the only right universally possible to grant to one another – because we must refrain from something, rather than do something. In this sense, there is only one possible human right, and all other rights derive from it.

Some contract rights are not necessary but beneficial. These rights generally can be categorized as forms of ‘insurance’. They cannot be directly exchanged without an intermediary institution acting as the insurer. People cannot equally contribute to their costs. We call these rights ‘Human Rights’.

Now this is not to say that you have no control over your rights. You can for example (and we all do) demand additional rights in exchange for our compliance with manners, ethics, morals, norms, laws that are levied equally against all. These rights are not human rights, they are not natural rights. They are rights that you demand for your compliance. THe problem is, that means that they are just a preference. That’s all. You must get a right in exchange even if you demand it, it cannot exist until there is a contract for it, somehow. And we can cause discomfort, economic friction, and political resistance. Or we can offer to contribute more somehow in exchange for additional rights. In this sense, most arguments are in favor of demanded rights, in the form of FREE RIDING, PRIVILEGES, RENTS, and DIVIDENDS.

Free riding is letting other people pay for something that you enjoy. Voting for a tax that you don’t have to pay is free riding. Living off your parents is free riding.

Sometimes we attempt to seek privileges not rights – a privilege is something that unlike insurance, is something we are likely to obtain, and which comes at a cost to others, without our providing something else in exchange. These are not rights, but privileges at the expense of others.

In contemporary politics, unscrupulous people attempt to label privileges as rights, so that they can obtain something from others at no cost to themselves This is not seeking rights but seeking privileges. It is a form of corruption, which is just an indirect form of theft.

In economics, seeking privileges from government is a form of corruption called ‘rent-seeking’. (Which admittedly, is an old and confusing name. In previous centuries, people would seek to obtain an interest in land so that they could collect rents on it.) Today, people seek an interest in tax revenue so that they can collect income from it. This is Rent-Seeking. The government, in practice, if not in theory, owns all land, and we rent it from the government by taxes. If you cannot pay your taxes, you cannot keep your land. Taxes today, are no different from taxes under feudalism. We have just replaced private landowners with a political bureaucracy. In both cases we are renting our land, and in many cases the homes we build, from the government. Taxes are our rents. And people who seek to own part of taxes are rent-seekers.

if you obey norms (manners, ethics and morals) and obey natural rights (property), you do so at a cost to you.

If you think of society as a business (it is, because it must be), and the business is to grow the local market (it is, at least to maintain it), because everyone in the local market will profit from it. (they do). Then these businesses (societies) grow through phases, just as businesses do (or really, business go through phases like society does, just a lot faster because they’re smaller), and in certain early phases(startups) they require a lot of investments from their shareholders (citizens), and in other phases they produce tremendous surpluses (mature, commoditized businesses), then we can see that most of the problem we deal with in politics, is who makes what contributions, and who collects what dividends, and how those dividends are used.


It is very hard to argue against dividends (redistribution) if people respect (adhere to) manners, ethics, morals, and natural rights (property rights), as well as whatever arbitrary laws are created that affect all people equally.

The general argument, which is true, is that by adhering to manners, ethics, morals, natural rights and arbitrary laws, you earn the right to participate in the market for goods and services. And that dividends are a due only to those people who provide goods and services in the market. The problem is that a market can’t exist without consumers, and that consumption is equally as important as production and distribution. You can’t have one without the other. So this argument is at best, empirically weak.

The problem with dividends (redistribution) is not the logical requirement for dividends (redistribution), but the problem with how to determine what a dividend is, how to collect them, who has earned them, and how to allocate them, and how to distribute them.

But I will have to leave that rather lengthly discussion for another time. 🙂

This is very close to the ‘final word’ on rights. It is extremely hard to criticize this series of statements using any form of rational argument. I will be happy to engage literate people on the topic but ask the moderators for their help.


1) Judges are forced to adjudicate between customary law, regulation, and legislation during a period of rapid social, economic, and political upheaval. In science for example, there is no temporal pressure to decide. In conflict there is temporal pressure to decide. The state has taken on the monopoly of the application of violence, and created a monopoly method of dispute resolution (courts), and created a monopoly body by which to adjudicate such conflicts (law, legislation, and regulation.)

2) There exists only one universal law of human cooperation. We call that law ‘natural law’. That natural law consists in reciprocityReciprocity requires satisfaction of the criteria (a) fully informed, (b) productive, (c) warrantied, (d) voluntary transfer, (d) free of imposition of costs upon the interests of others by externality. One can obtain an interest by bearing a cost (performing an improvement) for the purpose of obtaining an interest; and one can have no interest until one has born a cost to obtain such an interest.

3) This one law (reciprocity) provides decidability independent of opinion, preference, custom, or presumption of good, and is the reason international law is governed by reciprocity it is the only rule that provides reciprocal (equal) incentive against retaliation for the imposition of costs upon one another. Law evolved, from the first record, to the present, for the purpose of preserving the volume, velocity, and returns on cooperation, and preventing cooperation’s opposite: retaliation cycles that throughout history have produced the deleterious effects of feuds.

4) Customary Law (especially germanic, if not all european) consists of the discovery and accumulation of applications of this law of reciprocity that we call Tort law. Legislation (command) and regulation (prior constraint) have been given the FORCE of LAW by those whose profit interest – either the population (preservation of returns on cooperation) or the territorial rulers (returns from taxation).

5) The primary function of RULE has been the preservation of cooperation by use of organized violence to suppress impositions of costs upon the investments of others. This is the role of insurer of last resort of Personal Interests.

6) The primary function of GOVERNMENT has been the construction of commons and the extraordinary returns produced by commons, while insuring those commons from privatization of commons, socialization of losses into the commons, by the organized use of violence. This is the role of insurer of last resort of the Commons.

7) The primary function of the STATE, particularly with the advent of paper currency, and now fiat (unbacked) currency (our money consists of nothing but shares in the economy) has increasingly evolved to function as the insurer of last resort against the Hazards of the vicissitudes of nature (disasters, tragedies, accidents, disability, health, old age, and even war).

8) Rights can only exist (a) by reciprocal exchange of the same obligation, and (b) when insured by a third party with sufficient organized violence to insure and reinforce them. Otherwise they are not rights but impositions by means of command. It is correct to say we create a market ‘demand’ natural rights, and we create a market demand for human rights, but those rights do not exist until we organize sufficient violence into roles and institutions to insure those rights: police, sheriffs, soldiery, and judges.

9) Human rights consist of AMBITIONS that we demand from the Governments of States in order to tolerate their retention of a monopoly of control over a territory. They exist as a postwar attempt to constraint governments to improving their territory, people, and assets by market means, without imposition upon their neighbors. Such rights, likewise, do not exist. But are merely an ambition.

10) The universal declaration of human rights contains a few provisions that were necessary to obtain the signatures of the then-communist states, that asserted positive rights (obligations to provide for one another without constraint on the reproduction that exhausts the ability to provide for others, and therefore results in the gradual dysgenic decline as we reverse thousands of years of upward redistribution of reproduction back down to the underclasses who are not able to produce sufficient market goods and services to exist without harming the reproduction of the middle and upper classes.) [note: we have reversed the flynn effect and have, even in china, been losing a third of a point of intelligence over a fairly short number of years. The productivity of a people is reducible to the median of the population’s cost of education and training, such that every point below what is today’s 105 and tomorrow’s 110 places an intolerable burden upon the rest of the polity.]

8) Our American constitution persisted the anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic (and possibly proto-indo-european) law of sovereign men limited to acts of reciprocity, and licensed the government to act in their interests to preserve their sovereignty (the original text being ‘life, liberty, property’). Unfortunately at the time the techniques of formal logic, strict constriction from first principles, were not known. We are no longer limited, and there is no reason any and every law cannot be constructed formally from the natural law of reciprocity, producing a complete, consistent, and easily falsifiable body of adjudicatable law. There is no reason any and every act of legislation, and any and every act of regulation, cannot be so constructed. The principle difference under such formal construction is that the one law, discovered application of the one law, regulation to limit hazards of those actions not open to restitution, and CONTRACTS for the production of commons would be consistent, and as such the government could only issue contracts under law, not edicts above that law. (This would destroy the left’s ability to usurp power by democratic means).

9) The Uniqueness of Western Civilization is reducible to (a) a militia that constitutes the shareholders, (b) individual sovereignty of shareholders, (c) the demand for truth, duty, and reciprocity from one another in mutual insurance of our sovereignty. (d) And sovereignty results in the necessity of markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities. (e) such markets, adjudicated by the law of tort, adapt to change faster than all other methods of human organization. (f) it is this rapidity of adaptation and resulting insulation from corruption and rent seeking that made the west develop faster than the rest in both the ancient world and the modern, with the Abrahamic Dark Age of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim attacks on the great civilizations, providing the only hindrance. Once north sea trade was reestablished, the saxon commercial order constructed in europe, and the atlantic opened to the age of sail, the west was finally, by the age of napoleon, able to return to Roman levels of institutional sophistication, and universal imposition of law. [note that the west had fertile lands and forests but no flood river valleys to concentrate production, concentrate people, and develop taxation. So while the ancient world could form armies by taxation, western people had to form militias that relied on advanced (at the time) technology that required whole families to pay for. These militias (cattle raiders, sea peoples, vikings, pirates, european explorers ) organized expeditions (raids) but did so voluntarily. There was no other means of organizing other than contract. It was this order that led to our law, our debate, our reason, and from there our science and technology. Western excellence is due to our law – which elsewhere is not contract but command.

10) The progressives lie to mask what is merely theft – they rely on postmodernism (lying by sophistry), and they rely on marxism (pseudoscience) as well as freudian and boazian pseudoscience. So yes, the Progressives (socialists) lie, but the Conservatives (Aristocratics) cannot tell the truth: The truth is quite simple: the reason for the success of western and eastern civilization, and most obviously the ashkenazim, is the upward redistribution of reproduction, and the use of manorialism, taxation, and the vicissitudes of nature to limit the reproduction of the underclass until such point that surpluses are sufficient to continually increase the standard of living through continuous market competition and innovation. Man was not oppressed. The man self domesticated through the same process he used for plants and animals: breeding the best and culling the rest. This is the dirty secret of civilizations.

11) Sovereignty, Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity produce markets, and markets are eugenic. They are just a peaceful form of eugenics rather than war, enslavement, enserfment. By use of Sovereignty, Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, and Markets western man in the ancient world, and in the modern, dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, infant mortality, early death,

12) The chinese are not so inhibited as we are. they do not care about markets other than in their ability to preserve their racially homogenous polity, and return themselves to position of world power to do so. They are actively researching methods of direct improvement while event their one child policy did not help the ongoing decline in the distribution of intelligence. We are doing the opposite, which is undermining the very reason for our evolutionary success, ad the means by which we dragged mankind out of darkness, and we are doing it through immigration of those very peoples who we have spent thousands of years eliminating from our polities. As far as I know anglicans and ashkenazim remain at parity, but the anglos otherwise have lost a full standard deviation or more since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Even the Norwegians are in distributional decline.

13) The most profitable action any polity can take is to institutionalize benevolent eugenics, and that is to pay the underclasses not to reproduce, and to limit all immigration to skilled professionals, and to push the young and old into the labor force in the less demanding occupations. This is the lesson of our experiment with universal democracy and marxist-postmodernist globalism: dramatic reversal of centuries of civic improvement. At present only the east asians are willing to pay the costs of retaining their accumulated achievements. The eugenicists were right and in retrospect it appears that the Boas, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and French Postmodern movements were but reactions against Darwin, Maxwell, Menger, Spencer, and Nietzsche. And the entire postwar period has been nothing but a pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational attack on western civilization – an effort to repeat the destruction of the civilizations of the ancient world by the same means – false promises. This time with pseudoscience and pseudo-rational sophisms using the major media instead of supernatural sophisms using roman roads and greek writing.

Perfect Government Under Rule of Law


0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non.

1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:

2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons.

3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests)

4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons.

5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information.

6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction.

7) A market for the resolution of disputes over demonstrated interests by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary)

8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers)

9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.

10) A Judge of Last Resort (Monarchy).

Our Mistaken Emphasis on Government Rather than Juridical Defense from it.

We are always ruled. We are often governed. The law is the minimum rule. We can never escape law and commons and hold territory. We spend far too much ink on how to insure good rule, government, rulers, and governors. And we cannot make a good ruler or governor. We spend too little ink on universal standing and juridical defense from rulers and governors. This is because we not only seek advocacy of political orders in order to rally allies with whom me seek advantage from both rule and government – but would be constrained ourselves by rule of law if our preferred leaders obtained it. All political advocacy in favor of one form of rule, or one form of government, and another, is an attempt to circumvent the cost of exchange. Libertarians are partly morally blind, progressives are almost entirely morally blind (libertarians and progressives) and conservatives not only see clearly but are over-sensitive. And all attempts at political power are merely attempts to circumvent voluntary exchanges of cooperation that occur in the family, tribe and market. Rule that prohibits parasitism in the tribe, market and government forces us to conduct voluntary exchanges (compromises) none of which are optimum for the long term capital accumulators (conservatives), medium time frame producers (libertarians) and short time frame consumers(progressives). Just as we use voluntary exchange in the market to organize production, distribution, trade, and consumption, we organize the production of commons via government. But if government is not a vehicle for the facilitation of trade between the long(conservative), medium(libertarian), and short(progressive) factions, it is no different from not possessing a free market for the production goods and services, an not possessing money to signal demand. When free market advocates call for infinitely open markets this imposes costs on the other factions. When socialists call for redistribution this imposes costs on the other factions. When Conservatives call for the payment of normative costs, this imposes a cost on the other factions. But if we instead of imposing costs upon one another, conduct trades, then those costs are the expenses that we pay to cooperate on means despite our cognitively biased different ends. Cooperation lets a species specialize. Cooperation by voluntary exchange lets us specialized without dying off and producing a new generation. Cooperation by voluntary exchange collects information from the specialists in inter-temporal reproduction: short consumption progressives, medium productive libertarians, and long term, conservative capital accumulators. By satisfying the wants of all through voluntary exchange, together we ‘calculate’ the optimum possible reproduction for all, the same way that the market calculates the optimum possible production for all. If I have not converted you to market production of commons (a market government) consisting of at least four if not five houses, each of which splits by gender, then hopefully at least I will help you understand mankind’s long struggle to increase the scope and rewards of cooperation by the use of market and voluntary exchange to produce the information necessary for us to act in our collective interests.

Part 999 –  The Law

Definitions Within Law

LAW means ‘that beyond which one may not transgress without consequence, whether Physical law of nature or Natural law of man.”

Categories of Law

  1. Natural Law, Rights and Obligations under Sovereignty and Reciprocity
  2. Findings of Law, meaning Judge Discovered Law (discovered by the court during the resolution of a dispute.)
  3. Contract (agreement between parties) under the natural law of reciprocity.
  4. Acts of the Commons ( Rules produced by a governing body using rules of law, and given the force of law )
  5. Acts of Regulation (Rules of Prior Constraint given the force of law by the insurer of last resort)
  6. Acts of Command (rules are given the force of law, produced by one or more rulers and governors regardless of rules of law)

Decidability of Law

1. Rule of Law by Reciprocity (Natural Law – Non Conflict)
Rule of Law by the Natural Law of Reciprocity (Logical), or “concrete” definition that must preserve one right of reciprocity, rendering all disputes decidable, and all findings of law, regulation, and legislation, and all contracts under them decidable. Reciprocity provides a Formal Logic of Juridical Decidability.

Reciprocity creates The Law that is Statement of FACT.

2. Rule of Law (By Conformity to Rights)
Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition. Rule of Law by Rights provides a Rational method of juridical decidability. Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights – rights that can be articulated – but that need not be reciprocal or internally consistent.

Rule of Law by Conformity to Rights produces findings of law that are Rational Judgements given unavoidable inconsistencies.

Non-Retroactivity: No finding of law, regulation, or legislation may apply retroactively: if there is no such law there is no crime.

3. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation – Agreement between a Group)
Rule by Law: a “Formalist”: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and that either the state or the people are unlimited in their imposition of  ….   Rule by Legislation is aFormalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law.

In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges).

Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of  “rule of law”.

The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.

Rule of Law by Legislation produces findings of law that are Reasonable given the inconsistency of the basis for laws.

4. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion – Individuals )
A “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition. The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional argument, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”.

Rule of Man’s Arbitrary Discretion requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great and possibly unlimited ‘discretion’, but not necessarily the judiciary or the people.

Rule of law by Arbitrary Discretion produces findings of law that are Arbitrary.

( Counsel:  The ancient concept of Rule OF law can and shall be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power by the judiciary and the state, and rule of law by the Natural Law of  Reciprocity (“Natural Law”) serves as a check against the government, the judiciary, and the people.

Under rule BY law, findings of the court, regulation, legislation, and commands are enforced as if law a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights

Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights.  

As such there is only one Rule of Law: Reciprocity and all other pretenses are not rule of law, but judgments of some number of Men, with varying degrees of consistency and given force of law, by organized violence to do so. )

Common Anglo Between Equals vs Continental Law Between Rulers and Subjects


a relationship between men, a relationship between men and the state.

( … )

Possession, Property, Right, and Title

  1. Opportunity: any interest that Man my wish to acquire through his investment that has not yet been invested in by others.
  2. Possession: Possession is a Fact. Possessions are Personally insured. Consisting of that which one has acted to prevent others from consumption or use.
  3. Property: Property is a Norm. Property is collectively insured. Consisting of that which evolves as general rules of non-imposition between people with similar kinship, interests, or interdependence. Property is that which is insured against non-imposition by a third party organization.
  4. Property Rights: Property Rights are dependent upon the existence of an institution that acts as the insurer of last resort, and enforces rights and obligations in matters of disputes.
  5. Title …..

Rights (define)


The Uninsured:

Natural Right: Reciprocity.

Desired Right: A right that you wish to possess if you can find (a) a party to exchange it with you and (b) an enforcer (insurer) of those rights once you negotiated them.

The Self Insured:

Consensual Right: (from promise to formal document)

The Collectively Insured:

Normative Right: (norms, manners, ethics, morals),

The Institutionally Insured (enforceable):

Right (Legal Right) : a contractual obligation by another party to perform some actions, and refrain from other actions

Enforceable Rights: Enforceable Rights exist only when

The Institutional Privileges

Artificial Right (or Political Privilege)

The International Ambitions

Human Rights : Those Institutional rights necessary for human freedom from political predation, that any government must seek to produce for its citizens if that government wishes to preserve its sovereignty from actions against it by those signatories of the contract for human rights: the insurers of last resort.

Human rights were an attempt by western nations in the post-colonial and post-war era to set the terms by which governments would respect the sovereignty(esp. borders) of other governments, in an attempt to limit countries to internal development rather than expansionary war; to prevent another world war; to contain the horrors of communism; to contain the horrors of islamism;to prevent the continuing horrors of primitive and developing countries; and to direct the purpose of government exclusively to the improvement of the condition of those under it’s dominion.

Violations of Rights (define common crimes under each)

Acting as:

Warranting Severity of Restitution and Punishment as:

Closing (Summary)

There is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (transcendence, sovereignty of life, liberty, property,  under reciprocity, truth, duty, and markets.)

Rule by legislation allows either the state or the body politic to override those rules.

And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).


Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you”

Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.

“Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.”

Via Empathia : …….The Copper Rule

“Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them.”

Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity.

“Limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, of the demonstrated interest of others, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.”

Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
………………………….. … The Jury, and
………………………….. … Markets in everything.

The Iron Rule: …. “Might Makes Right”.

The Silver Rule (Presumption of Inequality)
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement that we limit our actions from the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.


The Golden Rule (Presumption of Equality)
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

As determined by;

Either any change, or the total change, in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

Why Does Reciprocity Serve as Natural Law?

Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.  That’s what the words moral and ethical mean: “reciprocity”.

Demonstrated Interest

Where a Demonstrated Interest consists of:

  1. (I) Existential Interests, and (II) Obtained Interests:


Existential Interests Include:

1. Self: Life, Body, Genes, Memories, Mind, Attention Time, and Action

2. Consumption:

3. Opportunity for Action, Stimulation, Experience.

4. Status and Class (reputation, honor): Self-Image, Status, Reputation Social, Sexual, Economic, Political, and Military Market Value

5. Kith and Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Interests: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), and Marriage Children (genetic reproduction)
Consanguineous Relations (family, kin, clan, tribal and national relations)

6. Sustainable Patterns of Association, Cooperation, Insurance, Reproduction, Production, Distribution and Trade: Friends, Acquaintances, Neighbors, Cooperative Relations, Commercial Relations, Political Relations, and Military Relations.

And Obtained Interests:


Obtained Interest refers to Interests that are demonstrated by bearing a cost of opportunity, time, effort, resources, to obtain that interest without imposing upon the previously demonstrated intersets  of others.

And Where;

Obtained Interests Include:

  1. Several (Personal) Interests
    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”  Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

2. Shareholder (Fractional) Interests
Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

3. Title Interests (Weights and Measures)
Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

4. Artificial Interests (Privileges)
Letters of Marque, Patents, Copyrights, Grants of License.

5. Common Interests, or “Commons” (Community Property)
Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

(i) Common Opportunity Interests
When people come together in proximity, and suppress impositions of costs upon the interests of others through the incremental evolution of the law of reciprocity, they decrease the time and effort required to produce voluntary association, cooperation and exchange. As such polities decrease opportunity costs, and generate opportunities. These opportunities are un-homsesteaded (opportunities) until invested in by individuals either by expenditure of time effort and resources, or by forgoing opportunities for consumption. As such the proximity of people and the institution of reciprocity under law produce a commons of opportunities that we seize (homestead) by competition. As such no one may claim interest in an opportunity without conducting and exchange by which to seize it.

(ii) Informational commons: knowledge. Information.

(iii) Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: habits, manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consist of forgone opportunities.

(v) Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion, Education, Banking, Treasury, Government, Laws, Courts.

(vi) Monuments (art and artifacts).
Monuments claim territory, demonstrate wealth, and provide one of the longest most invariable normative and economic returns that any culture can construct as a demonstration of conspicuous production (wealth), and as such, conspicuous excellence. (hence why competing monuments represent an invasion. Temples, Churches, Museums, Sculptures being the most obvious examples of cultural claim or conquest. )

(iv) Formal (PhysicalCommons: the territory, it’s waterways, parks, buildings, improvements and infrastructure.



2. Government




Is the State Moral?

The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local rent-seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where the concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non-state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to a territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in.

The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule-of-law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense.

Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt.

So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent-seekers to fewer larger centralized rent-seekers.

This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since the suppression of local corruption and rent-seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress new, larger organizations of rent-seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them.

In this sense, the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons.

Where commons include the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff.

Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as the insurer, investor, and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it.


In the political context, when people are expressing in their government, it only refers to three factors: (a) the framing of the debate by the media, academy, state complex, (b) the orderliness or at least comprehensibility of the patterns of speech and (c) the current levels of anxiety over the future.

In other words, the academy, state, media, create demand by generation of conflict, just as diversity of race, ethnicity, and class generates conflict, just as ideological competition creates conflict. The state generates conflcit for ATTENTION which gets them POWER.

Trust is a synonym for predictability over time.



Monarchy (which is a purely Christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract.

Russian Tzars had dictatorial power,
European monarchs did not.
Roman and Greek did not.
The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law.

As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in England, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state.

Unfortunately, the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists, and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises.

If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all-out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other.

As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo-european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with Christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things).

And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.


The fact that we tax tradesmen and members of bureaucracies at the same rate is counter-progressive (regressive).

If you’re going to tax progressively (effectively a sales tax on market participation), employment in or as Laborers, Tradesmen, Professionals, Small Medium Businesses, Industries, Government should be taxed progressively.

However the single most detrimental policies have been:
(a) inter temporal redistribution and risk propagation (which is incalculable) rather than the Singapore/Texas model of forced savings and redistribution into personal health and retirement accounts (which is calculable – and reinvest-able).
(b) The redistribution of middle class reproduction to the underclasses due to (i) inability to self segregate, thereby forcing families to ‘buy their way’ into expensive neighborhoods and schools at the cost of increased female labor, and decreased rates of reproduction. (b) the taxation and burning of reproduction by the middle class to redistribute reproduction to the lower classes (that should either be sterilized or limited to one child.)

Because ‘white people’ can live extremely well in high trust high quality well maintained commons by purely voluntary labor, it is possible for ‘whites’ to spend very little on redistribution and commons production, and also work less if they can isolate themselves from less advanced (domesticated) groups. There is zero reason, other than interest rates on home and auto, and the need to buy overpriced housing in overpriced neighborhoods, for more than 10% overhead of GDP. White westerners with small arms, required service, some artillery and nuclear weapons can build extremely low cost per capita high quality commons simply because IT IS IN OUR NATURE. Heterogeneity (diversity) has destroyed western civilization. We let pandora out of her box when we allowed women to vote without first limiting the damage that they could do once loosed in the polity by compensating for their dysgenic impulses. Civilization occured because of paternalism: the use of competition and capital to limit the reproductive damage done by women’s intuitions.


Deep States and How to Deal with Them

Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance…..

1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified.
2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives.
3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced.
4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them.

1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level.
2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest.
3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect.
4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly).
5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts.

1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition.
2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions.
3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate.

Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort.

You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’.

All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other.

And that is what we see.

3. Law

Nov 11, 2016 10:38pm

Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.

(That might be hard to catch without pondering a bit.)

4. Norms

Manners Ethics Morals Traditions Holidays

The Problem of Habituation (state, monopoly) vs Reason (spectrum, markets)


The reason we need a Sun Tzu a Machiavelli, and a Doolittle, is because we are civilized and moral people and do not grasp the limit beyond which the immoral is necessary for group success. Conversely, the reason for Jewish and Muslim success in undermining, weakening, conquest, destruction by consumption, and failure of creating a civilization of their own as a growing, going concern, is their immorality. In other words. Law may be a moral discipline, but war by genetic, informational, financial, economic, and military means is not a moral discipline.

You cannot simply, like a pet, learn habits, without reason. Because other people do not learn moral habits. They learn immoral habits and call them ‘good’.

We live in an era of SCALE. The world, the universe, the very large and the very small. Our minds evolved to habituate almost everything and reason only when necessary. But we live in an era where reason is always necessary.

ANd this is why democracy fails. Not enough of us have knowledge. Not enough skill, and far too few of us reason, and fewer still who reason across time.

Most of us are still semi-domesticated, well trained animals.

That does not mean that like the herd we must tolerate being led to slaughter.


Absolute Morality?

Morality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command).

Cooperation evolved after individual survival. For cooperation to be rational it must be mutually beneficial. For it to be mutually beneficial it must be (in the aggregate) non-parasitic.  We raise our children, demonstrate kin selection with kin, and we cooperate with non-kin, and we compete with those with whom we do not cooperate.

The conflation of morality with strategy and law with command is a long-standing problem in rational philosophy. The Natural Law and Morality are identical but Group Strategy and Group Contract are merely utilitarian.

Morality is absolute.
Norms are not necessarily moral. Norms are merely tactics.
Legislation, Regulation is not necessarily (and rarely) lawful (under Natural Law).

As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free-riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. So not only is morality absolute, but the relative moral content of different cultures is absolute. That this difference determines economic velocity, and economic velocity affords us greater morality (if we choose it) is the more interesting area of inquiry.

5. Marriage and Family

On Marriage


How Do Family Structures Vary?

The family structure determines:

Conversely, increases in family size determine:

List of Family Structures

Small Homogeneous High Trust Privileged Societies Can Tolerate Highly Redistributive Governments

State Financed Single Parent Family – Medium-term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.

High Trust Societies with Higher Economic Velocity, Can Tolerate Libertarian Governments

Absolute Nuclear Family – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.

Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.

Medium Trust Marginal Societies with Medium Economic Velocity – Require Social Democratic Governments

Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.

Low Trust, Poor Societies with Low Economic Velocity – Require Authoritarian Governments

Traditional Family, Communitarian Family – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.

Hetaeristic Monogamy – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations.
Pairing Family, Serial Marriage – Medium-term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.

Consanguine Family – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

Marriage is a Corporation

I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:

(a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity;
(b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other;
(c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production;
(d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and
(e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.);
(f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.

Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.

Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.

However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.

So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).

Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.

It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.

If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).

Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.

All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.

This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.

My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

6. Education


  1. Fitness, Mindfulness, Craftsmanship, Sport,
  2. Psychology, Friendship, Sociology, Marriage, Education, Children

  3. Reading, writing, oratory, research, presentation, essay, paper, story, script, book.

  4. Grammar imitation, logic by practice, and rhetoric by demonstration.

  5. Fairy Tales, Myths, Heroic Novels, Historical Novels, Biography, History and Geography

  6. Economic History, Technological history, Military History, Political History, Art History

  7. Arithmetic, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, Analysis

  8. Physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology – ecology, sentience.

  9. Reciprocity, Natural law, economics, politics, group strategy,

  10. Personal FInance, Family business, small business, medium business, enterprise, industry.

7. Economics


Free markets are a lie. Their existence has no scale on independent theories, and likewise, their existence has no scale on independent markets. They are another cosmopolitan invention.

A moral pretense by which to engage in immoral actions.

The requirement that we not impose costs by externality upon the investments of others causing the loss of capital in territorial, physical, institutional, cultural, normative, informational, familial, and genetic assets limits markets.

Markets allow us to create opportunity through proximity, informational, informal and formal institutions, and physical infrastructure as a common good. Market opportunities are produced as a common good. We can then serve the common good by converting opportunity into exchanges, the performance of which, creates more than it consumes by the service of the coincidence of wants.

We create opportunities for temporal compression through the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and seize them through the identification of a coincidence of wants, thereby converting the potential for temporal compression into the existential compression of time. And it is through this temporal compression that we, collectively, in increasing scales, constantly reduce the cost of existence, and defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity.

If you understand this you will understand all of human civilization, and the reason we have achieved what no other creatures have achieved.

We must defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and scarcity, and we do so through cooperation, and we cooperate through the incremental suppression of the imposition of costs on one another upon life, body, kin, possessions, and interests, in the form of violence, theft, fraud, falsehood, conspiracy, rents and free-riding.

We accomplish this incremental suppression by the demand for a warranty of due diligence for our products(materials), services(actions), and information(speech) and the prosecution, restitution, punishment, ostracisation, or execution, of those who circumvent that Warranty of Reciprocity by production, action, or speech.

This leaves us with no option but to participate in voluntary markets under which we limit our productions, actions, and speech to that which consists of productive, fully informed (truthful), warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of cost upon the life, kin, possessions, and interests of others by externality.

This explains the entirety of human existence.

The Need for New Institutions of Calculation

(the problem of measurement)

(the problem of pooling)


Ordinary people need elites, and elites need ordinary people

Ordinary people need elites, and elites need ordinary people unless dis-intermediated by capital. So end disintermediation by capital and you restore the reciprocal dependence of elites upon ordinary people. So in order to prevent elites from defecting from their ordinary people the people must prevent disintermediation their from elites by capital. How is this done? Relatively easily. Especially with full accounting of changes in capital.


The Soviet Experiment

(advantage of the discount on market prices of serf labor at cost of skills and incentives)


The Chinese Experiment



Why No Version of Socialism Is Possible

[ KEY LESSON: HUMANS SEEK RENTS over productivity. The only way to obtain those rents is indirectly through market gains. And of all the goods you can produce, a one child policy for the unproductive provides the highest returns. Why? Because people CAN act on DIRECT rent seeking, and people CANNOT act on indirect rent seeking (market returns). ] In other words, socialism is the ultimate selfishness.


  1. The investments are undecidable without monetary interests (it’s impossible) so that in the absence of money and rule of law we see discretion.

  2. The investments are minimal because in all organizations, members seek to maximize rents.

  3. Because the incentive to maximize rents is superior to the incentive to invest, corruption evolves instead of production.

  4. Because of all of the above, the general standard of living of the people declines relative to those who practice markets.

  5. Because of the difference in standard of living force must be used to retain the population(defectors) OR force will (in the past at least) be used to prevent invasion by defectors.

  6. Socialists are simply seeking non-market rents. The way to obtain market premiums is to exit the company in favor of a company that pays more.

  7. If you cannot exit the company and obtain a premium, then you are already maximizing your income.

  8. Engineers (employees) that produce outsized returns provide those returns to the entire company, allowing increases in rents by all employees.

  9. Investors require high returns for the simple reason that the vast majority of their investments fail. The portfolio strategy is to lose most, make good returns on a few, and have one windfall. This is also how the movie business, and publishing business work, with outliers paying for all others. (this is why redistribution – exists under capitalism: unpredictability)

  10. Engineers with ideas that produce outsized returns leave the company to produce the product on their own. If they cannot produce it on their own then they means that the value was in the organization not the individual since the value is in organizing and creating investment, production, distribution, and trade.

  11. There have been rare cases where individuals are not compensated (windshield wiper delays) but the vast number of individuals who contribute returns venture on their own – and don’t otherwise, because they in fact cannot produce the product.

  12. As an aside, corporate democracy is absolutely ridiculous. All the evidence illustrates that leadership matters, and as someone who has built some very large consulting companies, specializing the creating consensus in companies, democracy in companies would be as catastrophic as it is in politics, and only lead to the same corruption. Someone DOES know the answer in the company. The primary function of Management Consulting Companies is to survey what everyone in a company knows, to identify which ideas have some potential given the available financial and market resources and then write an argument and develop consensus in the company because of it. Why? Dunning Kruger: everyone in a company (any organization, and in society) VASTLY overstates their knowledge except Generals, CEOs, and Presidents. Any competent CEO or general will say the same thing: I am only doing this job because I can’t find someone who will do it better, or I promised some people I would do it until I succeeded or failed. That’s it.

I could go on but basically redistribution occurs through success of organizations. The problem is simply the one eugenicists warned us about, and economists acknowledge only behind closed doors: that the central problem for any polity is reducing the size of the unproductive classes to those who have been the victims of accidents, rather than increasing the size of dependent classes until their rents are maximized, and investment and risk are no longer possible on the one hand, and ability to absorb shocks is no longer possible on the other.

HUMANS SEEK RENTS. The only way to obtain them is indirectly through market gains. And of all the goods you can produce, a one child policy for the unproductive provides the highest returns.

Why? Because people CAN act on DIRECT rent seeking, and people CANNOT act on indirect rent seeking (market returns).

This is why market economies succeed in vast improvement of lower class conditions more so than the upper classes (who are subject to constantly forced economic rotation.
While the reason socialist economies always fail, and always will fail is attributed to a lack of incentives to produce, and because the creation of incentives for corruption, and because

Very few companies last the lifetime of their founders and their children. And as capital is continually less important than rates of invention and innovation, this will continue. Wealth generally survives under three generations. And around 94% of wealth is generated by small and medium business entrepreneurship. And of that wealth a not insignificant portion is research and development that that is later acquired by larger companies with access to public markets.

The only thing we can do today is eliminate consumer interest on consumption (houses, cars, appliances), and cut the size of the unproductive classes by eliminating immigration extending work life by providing ‘retirees’ and ‘students’ with part time work, eliminating the obesity problem that limits people’s ability to work, and by culling the underclasses through one child policy.

Everything else is suicidal (Europe, Canada, and America), or destructive (brazil, india).


The problem with current capitalism is that it is possible on the one hand to form unions that can extort from companies under collective bargaining (which is why companies left the USA), and on the other hand, it is possible for (a) investors to prey on companies at the expense of management and staff (this is easily fixed by prohibiting leveraged buyouts, and then legally limiting risk), and (b) we do not help companies adjust to shocks often enough (we should have helped hostess like we helped the auto companies), (c) we do not engage in enough private public ventures (like Tesla, which if successful directly or indirectly, will revolutionize transport by resetting the clock back 100 years), (d) we do not prohibit labor arbitrage (outsourcing production for the purpose of obtaining labor discounts), (e) and we conduct trade policy like everyone else, which is to attempt to restore technological leadership by ensuring that we are not behind (production of LED and other screens, and mass production of chips), (e) and eliminate corporate pensions (they are no longer possible) and centralize them (Singapore model), because they alter the pricing system such that products are decreasingly competitive. (and btw: eliminate government pensions as well.)


8. Physical Science

9. Mathematics


“Mathematics, by the virtue of consisting of nothing other than positional names, preserves constant relations, since only constant relations are expressible in the grammar of mathematics: the grammar of positional names.”

The discipline we call computer science is more generally the logic of operations, and is superior in informational density to mathematics in that it is causal and mathematics is merely descriptive.”


differences( logic ) > speech > sets > agorithms > mathematics


In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.


The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale-independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc.

As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’.

it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half-truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work.

There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention.

Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets.

This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed.

Anyway. Well-formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well-formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore, the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to the utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood.

How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?


Nouns are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names. Numbers are positional names of constant relations. As positional names, they are extensions of ordinary language. Math: the science of measurement by the use of constant relations.”

We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother;

Numbers differ from ordinary nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming

Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction.

Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation.

So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information).

Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application.

Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale-independent, context-dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception.

As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present.

As such, numbers serve as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason.

Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity.

As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason than it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience.

Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”.

Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit are pervasive.

Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with.

Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within.

Numbers are positional names of context-independent, scale-independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language.

In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.


The foundations of mathematics are simple.

The fact that they even phrase the question as such is hysterical. The reason mathematics is so powerful a tool is precisely because its foundations are so trivial. Like discourse on property in ethics and law, it is a word game because no one establishes sufficient limits under which the general term obscures a change in state.

Math is very simple. Correspondence (what remains and what does not), Types, operations, grammar, syntax. Generally we use mathematics for the purpose of scale independence. in other words, we remove the property of scale from the set of correspondences. But we might also pass from physical dimensions to logical dimensions (there are only so many possible physical dimensions). So now we leave dimensional correspondence. In mathematics we remove time correspondence by default, and only add it in when we specifically want to make use of it. In sets we remove temporal and causal correspondence … at least in most cases. So we can add and remove many different correspondences, and work only with reciprocal (self referencing) correspondence (constant relations). But there is nothing magic here at all except for the fields (results) that can be produced by these different definitions as we use them to describe the consequences of using different values in different orders.

But if you say “I want to study the parsimony, limits, and full accounting, of this set of types using this set of operations, with the common grammar and syntax” that is pretty much what someone means when they say ‘foundations’. Most of the time. Sometimes they have no clue.

There is nothing much more difficult here in the ‘foundations’ so to speak. What’s hard in mathematics is holding operations, grammar and syntax constant, what happens as we use different correspondences (dimensions), types, and values in combination with others and yet others, to produce these various kinds of patterns that represent phenomenon that we want to describe. And what mathematicians find beautiful is that there is a bizarre set of regularities (that they call symmetries or some variation thereof), that emerge once you becomes skilled in these models, just like some games become predictable if you see a certain pattern.

But really, math is interesting because by describing regular patterns that produce complex phenomenon, we are able to describe things very accurately that we cannot ‘see’ without math to help us find it.

Its seems mystical. It isn’t. Its just the adult version of mommy saying ‘boo’ to the toddler and the joy he gets from the stimulation. There is nothing magical here. it’s creative, and interesting, but it’s just engineering with cheaper tools at lower risk: paper, pencil, and time.

Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states.

However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth.

Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented.

Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it.

Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions).

So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions.

In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.


The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition.

Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions.   producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields.

So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it.

I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic.

There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language.

A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families.

A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book.

A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently.

Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words.

Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics.

Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.


In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible.

Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations).

The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

—“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

Good question.

In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own.

Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

(sequential possibility )

4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying.

We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts.

So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements.

However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.)

This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability.

Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first-order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century.

Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in the value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the Copenhagen consensus. Or the many-worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or Keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required


Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people.

The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra.

20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever-changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks.

Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics.

And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics, as we understand it, can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements.

Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real-world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing a change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality.

One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within.

However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them.

These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp.

Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations.

And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant.

So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries.

These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions.

Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others.

Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions.

So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability.

in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics.

And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience.

The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity.

Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you understand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations.

Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything.

As far as I know, all truth refers to testimony and we use the term ‘True’ ‘loosely’ for many purposes – largely ‘consent’. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).

We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).

We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.

As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.

In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).

Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.

Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.

This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).


—”Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions.

Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech.

So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period.

We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood.

But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names.

Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names.

This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position.

All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

10. Philosophy

The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY
Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE
Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD
Ethics, morality, law, economics

Law of Testimony – THE TRUE
Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL
Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

Mapping Natural Law to Philosophy and The Sciences

Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.)
Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends.
Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott.
Ethics and Morality:..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment.
Epistemology: …………Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality.
Law: …………………………Algorithmic Natural Law. The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity.
Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism” with tongue in cheek.)
Strategy:………………….. Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism
Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism
Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth.
The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias, And Lies

One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science).

If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one).

If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course
1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech)
2 – Law (social/cooperative science)
3 – Economics (organizational science)
4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement )
5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe)
6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials)
7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction)

If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature.
1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy)
2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy)

3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’
4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc.

5 – History, (description)
6 – Biography,(description)

7 – Argument (coercion)
7 – Essay (opinion)
8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression)

But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology))
In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology)
In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology )

For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule).


I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation).

Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind:
1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated).
2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations,
3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations,
4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values.

And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies.

– The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’)
– The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement)
– The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism)
– The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law)
– The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology)

We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers.
So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.)

(just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability).

This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures.

It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class).

While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations
While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations.
While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations.
While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to
We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations.


Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance.

Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production

Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force.

Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man).

Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions.

1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,)
2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. )
3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb.


Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism.

Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty.

Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world.

We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality.

We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it.

It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so.

In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion.

1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates
2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today.
3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences.
4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability.

No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused.

I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it.

Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs?

They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made.

(I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.)

– Testimony(what can I see not infer)
– Vocabulary
– Grammar
– Logic(reason) and Measurement(math)
– Natural Law
– Micro Economics (incentives)
– Strict Construction
– Rhetoric (argument)
I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice.

The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice.

In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

11. The Pseudosciences

Empirically speaking, we already overspend on Grad and PhD students. We overspend on most sciences (because they’re psuedosciences) and underspend on those that matter (physics, material science, chemistry, biological chemistry, genetics, archaeology) Virtually all other programs (psychology, social sciences, political sciences), and certainly all pseudosciences (the humanities) are a waste of money.

Even in those hard sciences we can see in the cites that the number of scientists that do meaningful work remains relatively constant over time, no matter how many scientists we add to the pool it seems to make very little difference. Just why this is true, we aren’t sure.

12. Religion

( … )

Part 4


(The Big List)

99% of law is not in fact ‘law’ but findings and application of the law. And because these findings and applications of law have no means of expiry they don’t vaporize.

  1. The law can’t change. There is only one: reciprocity.

  2. A constitution’s articles provide organizations and processes for administering that law.

  3. A constitutional Amendments include rights constructed under the law under the constitution.

  4. legislation can only exist of contract between members of the polity to produce a commons, and all contracts must expire either in time or when the objective is concluded.

  5. Regulation is dependent upon the legislation it seeks to enforce by prior or post constraint.

  6. Findings of the court are dependent upon regulation, legislation, rights, and of course, the law itself.

In other words, there must be a surviving chain of relations for findings, regulation, legislation, rights, constitution, and the law.

Back Matter

Law Versus Philosophy

Apr 1, 2020, 3:40 PM


Propertarianism is just a brand name for strictly constructed traditional anglo american constitutional law, that is an evolution of our law, that prevents the crimes invented during the twentieth century, that were used to undermine western civlization. “Propertarian” was an ‘insult’ that was levied against libertarians who reduced all questions of social science to measurement by property. Fortunately, all questions of social science, ethics and law, really are reducible to measurement by demonstrated interest that we call property. But, property, at least under our definition, is complete where under libertarianism it was insufficient. I chose the name “propertarianism” because it maintained this system of measurement, and “strictly constructed natural law of reciprocity” was too difficult a brand name. At this point I would change it to Sovereignty, or “European Traditional Natural Law.” or something else. But the ‘term’ has stuck as a brand name so it’s hard to change it.

Propertarianism consists of:

1 – The explanation for western success in ancient and modern worlds (adaptive velocity because of our individual sovereignty and resulting traditional law of property/tort.)
We call this Western Group Evolutionary Strategy.

2 – The completion of the scientific method and all that it entails – which is a lot and why P is such a big program: it touches everything and it converts almost all psychological, social, and political speech to economic expressions – which is counter-intuitive because it’s scientific where our current psychological social, moral, and political speech is only normative or in the case of psychology sociology and politics, both pseudoscientific and sophomoric.
We call this Vitruvianism(Metaphysics), Acquisitionism (Incentives, Behavior), Propertarianism (Ethics) and Testimonialism (Truth)

3 – The explanation of the different systems of argument used in the different civilizations, and in particular the abrahamic means of deceit used in the ancient world (judaism, Christianity, islam) and in the modern world (marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism/political correctness).
We call this The Grammars.

4 – A constitution, body of law, and attendant policies that restore the american, english, anglo saxon, germanic, western indo-european, constitution (contract among sovereigns) and hardens it from future undermining, by creating a legal means for the prosecution of crimes of undermining, including religious (jewish islamic), pseudoscientific, and sophomoric (marx, freud, boas, adorno, derrida, friedan, and marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism/political correctness), as well as the financing of undermining by prohibiting rent-seeking, privatization of commons, and socialization of losses).
We call this A New or Updated Constitution.

5 – a set of policies under that constitution that form the most substantial political, social, economic, and financial reform since the roman era – restoring the civil society.
We Call These The Reforms: The Policies Under the Constitution

6 – a set of restitutions and punishments that serve to return wealth to the american people, punish those who have engaged in undermining our people, and prevent repeats of undermining our people – or other peoples – in the future.
We Call These the Restitutions

Explanation of How Propertarianism Does All That

We create both the positive market for goods, services, and information in competition with and the negative market for suppression, restitution, punishment, and prevention, of falsehood and ir-reciprocity by the natural common law of tort that evolves scientifically through demonstrated resolution of disputes in real world conflicts. So we create a market where people have the ultimate sovereignty (monopoly of control), liberty (choose your own destiny), and freedom (free of coercion) in a competition between market cooperation (the markets) and markets for conflict resolution (courts), as long as you do so by truthful and reciprocal means.

We had these rights through most of our history but they have been stolen from us over the past century – on purpose, to destroy our civilization.

But how can we (restore) our use of the law for the purpose of suppressing crimes against our people?

This is how:

1) Do you know what a formal logic is? It’s grammar of the logic of inference using sets and binary truth or falsehood.

2) Do you know what programming is? It’s a grammar of operational logic using binary truth or falsehood.

3) Do you know what law is? It’s a formal operational rational grammar of conflict resolution, using ternary falsehood, truth candidacy, and undecidability.

4) Do you know what tort law is? It’s a formal rational operational grammar of conflict resolution over demonstrated interests that we enumerate as property, using ternary logic of falsehood, truth candidacy, undecidability.

Propertarianism is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of tort (demonstrated interests), and as a consequence a value neutral universal language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy), that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable (strictly constructed) constitutions, and their enumerated rights and responsibilities, the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy) by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech.

As such it allows us to outlaw hostile religions, and pseudo-religions especially the pseudoscientific and sophomoric restatements of supernatural judaism , christianity, and islam, in pseudoscientific and sophomoric and ir-reciprocal marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism.

Propertarianism is equivalent in scope to the revolutions of aristotelian reason (realism, naturalism, reason), the empirical revolution(realism, naturalism, empiricism), in that it completes the scientific method by extending it from the physical to the psychological and social sciences, including that of law, politics, and group strategy.

In other words, “propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; producing a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; resulting in a logical and scientific constitution; permitting the criminalization of ir-reciprocal and un-testifiable speech, and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.”
How Does P-Law Differ from Philosophy?

You Could Call P-Law Operational Philosophy in The Sequence of Syllogistic Reason > Rationalism > Set Logic > Operational Logic (algorithmic) > Equilibrial Logic (economic Logic)

0) Uses Series (supply Demand) vs Ideals.
1) Uses Operational vs Set Logic
2) Users Ternary Logic Not Binary (undecidable, Truthful, False)
3) Uses Satisfaction of Demand for Infallibility Not Ideal Truth
4) Tests for Deceits Not Just Errors
5) Tests for Irreciprocity Not Just ‘good’
6) Tests for Costs Not Just Internal Consistency
7) Tests for Closure by Reality Instead of Just Non-Contradiction
8) Tests for Limits and Full Accounting.
9) Tests for Warranty of Due Diligence, Liability, Restitutability.

Reasons for Disproportionate Western Success

When We Explain the Reason for Western Success We Discover:

“heroism and Excellence; Truth and Duty; Oath and Warranty; Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Law and Jury; and Voluntary Markets in Every Aspect of Life: Association, Cooperation, Production, Reproduction, Commons, Polities and War; the Direction of Surpluses to The Production of Commons and The Returns Therefrom; at The Cost of Suppression of The Reproduction of The Unproductive Underclasses; and The Direction of Dominance Expression to The Production of Commons by A Distributed Dictatorship of Individually Sovereign People and The Reciprocal Warranty of Denial of Power to Any and All.”

Largely, It’s Just that We Tell the Truth (we Testify) – and No One Else Does (they Narrate).

Propertarianism Is (a) the Completion of The Aristotelian Program (b) the Completion of The Scientific Method (c ) the Logic and Science of The Social Sciences, and (d) the Natural Law of Reciprocity Under Which All Display Word and Deed Is Expressible and Commensurable; (e) and The Means of Institutionalizing in A “market for The Suppression of Fraud” the Suppression of The Greatest Crime Against Humanity: The Big Lies that Are Responsible for The Last Dark Age and The New One that The Enemy Has Sought to Bring About.

(apr 2, 2020, 8:05 Pm)


Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action.

Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.

Grammars: As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities).

Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement)

Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational).

Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival)

Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent.

Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement),

Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity.

Sociology: Compatibilism, Tripartism, Trifunctionalism.

Cooperationism(Economics): Returns on Time in a division of labor.

In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines.

Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony.

So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility).

In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology).

Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement) Science(matter) and Economics(people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

Philosophy served as the stage between unorganized thinking and science, and that anything that still in philosophy that had any value in decidability has been replaced by science and scientific epistemology.

Metaphysics: Replaced by Paradigms and grammars
Paradigms consisting of market for parsimony. Parsimony consisting of Action. Action consisting of Actionable, Testifiable, Warrantable, Free of Incentive to Deceive. Consisting of: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Rational Choice, Reciprocity, full accounting.

Humans have developed a series of paradigms that deflate inflate, or fictionalize the most parsimonious but complete paradigm (above). In P we call these the ‘grammars’. (You can search our site for the grammars).

Humans possess the ability to determine constant and inconstant relations (differences). And to control the use of their detection of differences. We call this ability reason when used informally. We call comparisons of sets as means of testing constant relations ‘logic’. We have produced many logics. Mathematics is the most basic – consisting of one constant relation: position. In the discipline of logic we test rules of inference. However, logic isn’t closed and so all logic al assertions are contingent.As such all non-trivial logic is falsificationary. ALL of the grammars are logics of increasing tests of constant relations within different limits.

Epistemology: Replaced by Theory.
Free association(falsify by reason) > hypothesis(falsify by action) > theory (falsify by market) > law (falsify by limits- or ‘exhaustion’ if you prefer)

Truth: Replaced by Testimony (categorically, internally, operationally, externally, rational, reciprocal

Ethics: replaced by Reciprocity ((productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of …)

Politics: Rule of law, professional judiciary, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for classes for markets of commons, mixed economy, soft demonstrated (market) eugenics, direction of savings to the production of commons.

Strategy: most rapid adaptability (rate of evolution)

Aesthetics: Transcendence (Evolution)

Those are are all decidable propositions (Truths). That does not mean that one cannot express or a group cannot express different preferences.

It’s hard to accept but philosophy in the pursuit of truth has ended. All philosophy can tell us is choice (preference) because preferences are not true. Philosophy as a method of moral fictionalism survives in Europe. Philosophy as propaganda sophistry and deceit exists everywhere.

But truth and decidability have been usurped entirely by science: testimony.

This is why philosophy departments are now included with religion in libraries and in academic budgets.

I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies.

1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….)

2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition)

3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed.
… a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution)
… b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars
… c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability
… … c’) The Specification for Man
… d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed
… … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity.
… e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor)
… f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism
… g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis

4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies

5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization.

6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and

7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization.

8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations.

Which thing are you talking about?

If it’s political it’s 7 or 8.
Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time.
That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P.

P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science.
P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories.

So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)

(move this)

PROPERTARIANISM: DataTypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax

Think of Propertarianism as a programming language consisting of data types, operations, grammar, and syntax.

if you can ‘write a program’ that ‘computes’ (is operationally constructable’) with those data types, operations, grammar, and syntax, then you can write a formal description of any phenomenon open to human experience in the language of natural law.

You cannot do math without understanding it, and you can’t write software without understanding it, and you can’t write natural law without understanding it.

I mean… you’d honestly have to be a simpleton to think that you’re going to learn this FAST. you’ll learn it as fast as you could learn to program. If you can program you can simply do it faster because you’ve learned VERY SIMPLE VERSIONS of the form of operational logic of transformations that exist in propertarianism: Natural Law

The Structure of a Program or Contract
Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist)
Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends)
Constants and Variables (definitions constructed)
Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”)
Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions)
Functions (clauses that can be performed)
Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses)
Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value)
Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)

(Move this)

(propertarianism core)(important)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{terms and definitions }
-We … (who)
-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )
-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)
-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)
and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)
-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)
and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),
-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).
…. -Juried
…. …. -Adjudicated.
…. …. …. -Recorded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curt Doolittle

(Move this)

It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe.

The Structure of a Program or Contract
Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist)
Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends)
Constants and Variables (definitions constructed)
Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”)
Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions)
Functions (clauses that can be performed)
Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses)
Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value)
Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)

The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived:

1 – Productive
2 – Fully informed
3 – Warrantied
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

P-Law for Dummies

The Simple Version

(writing is in progress …)

What is Propertarianism?

The Most Frequent Complaint

The most frequent complaint from both readers and viewers is that they want to quickly understand this thing we call Propertarianism – and I’ve repeatedly failed to answer the question in a way that people who are not advanced degree holders in the philosophy of science, economics, law, or politics can understand.

And everyone says ‘get to the point’. So if I get to the point I’ll say:

It’s the completion of the scientific method –  which almost certainly means nothing to most of you – and even if you think it does, I promise you that you don’t understand – because your understanding of the scientific method is almost certainly incomplete. I didn’t understand the scope of consequences that would result from completing it either. And that’s why Propertarianism is complicated: because the consequences of completing that method affect every discipline.


And one of the other consequences is that it explains includes our present social and political conflict, and how to solve it. So the minimum reason you want to understand my work is to understand and perhaps solve the present conflict.  And, hopefully, that’s enough to tempt you into following along with me. If it doesn’t then our current conflict is in even more desperate condition.

So, It’s the completion of the scientific method, and its extension from the physical sciences to the human sciences – or what we call the soft sciences of language, psychology, sociology, politics, group strategy, including ethics, law, and economics.

The result is a vocabulary and grammar – meaning a vocabulary and sentence structure – that serves as a system of measurement across all human disciplines.

And you’ll discover pretty quickly how close that grammar is to mathematics – especially to geometry. And if you have experience with logic, in the sense of how we study the logics in philosophy, you might discover how it solves problems logics couldn’t. And if you have experience with programming you’ll understand just why that’s so. And if you also understood a bit of law and a bit of economics it will all fit together quickly.

But for most of you, think about it as a programming language for describing the world, rather than for programming a computer to simulate an artificial world.

Because really – that’s what it is. It’s a bridge between a programming language and ordinary language like logic is a bridge between mathematics and language. 

And just like mathematics, logic, formal logic, programming, P is a methodology.   And just as math uses numbers, operators, and an equals sign to balance them in a well-formed grammar that lets you test them; and just as  programming uses primitive types, complex types, variables, expressions ( phrases), classes, and functions(sentences), including operators (verbs), and programs (stories) that you, a compiler, or a computer can test,  P (short for Propertarianism) uses a set of constant terms, variable terms, complete sentences, operational vocabulary (meaning actions), that you  – or anyone – can test the same way a programmer or lawyer tests a program or contract today – except it’s far closer to the rigor of a program and far less easy to play games like you can in contract and law.

So, more precisely, it’s the completion of the scientific method, producing a universally commensurable logic of all sciences and all disciplines ( metaphysics, language, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, and economics). And with that logic, we can make statements about the formerly soft sciences just as concretely as we have about the formerly physical, or what we call hard sciences.

Understanding Ourselves

And we can use this method to describe the west’s disproportionate success in both the ancient and modern worlds, at dragging mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and his abuse by a nature all but hostile to human life.

Understanding Our Enemy

And with that knowledge, determine how and why the west decline in the present world.

And with that knowledge, and our law, restore our civilization, and continue dragging mankind to godhood – kicking and screaming against us all the while.

Primary Innovation 

( … ) Precision in truthful speech

Primary Problem Solved

( … ) lying, baiting into hazard… list of problems of the day

Primary Application 

( … law)

Lex Europae: “The White Law”

( … )  non-religious law

A Template Constitution for States in Western Civilization

( … )

A Constitution for the United States … and  Canada, and Australia, and ..

( … )

And this complete’s Aristotle’s project. And solves our current crisis.

So there. That’s Propertariaism (Testimony).

As an aside, I probably should call it Testimonialism, or the Science of Testimony, or The Law. Because it’s the science of truthful, reciprocal, operational speech.  Because ‘Propertarianism’ confuses people. Propertarianism refers only to the use of Property as a system of measurement for testing reciprocity within Ethics and Law. And I started with ethics. So I called it Propertarianism. And now, I am sort of stuck with the name “Propertarianism” at the moment, unless I publish a book under something else. Propertarianism is the science of testimony: truthful speech.

Why Does It Matter?

So Then What? The Problem of Our Age.

You probably understand that we are in a period of social and political conflict. It’s hard not to know that.  You might also know of this thing called the replication crisis, in psychology, sociology, political science, and even the relatively recent failures of economics.  And you may or may not know that while the last century has been full of technical innovations, that in general, it appears that certain parts of mathematics, physics, and economics are ‘stuck’ – and that anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, law, and economics, are being overturned by genetics, cognitive science, and archeology, as consisting of largely of pseudoscience – meaning they’re wrong, lies, harmful, or worse.

We don’t think of it this way, but Socrates Plato, Aristotle, and the other great greeks you may or may not have heard of; the British scientific enlightenment thinkers; also wrote their ideas during and after a great time of conflict or failure. And it’s during these periods of stress we are most likely to force ourselves to seek solutions to problems we may have thought we understood.

Because, now, imagine not that long ago, a world without computers.  Then, imagine how people thought about the world before Einstein, or before Darwin. Well, what did people think like before Aristotle – who invented what became a science. And there are a lot of people in between them.

( … )

What Does It Consist Of?

Now, let’s take it a step farther.
Let’s say you want to learn this methodology. Most people who have learned it, say there are a few basic ideas that provide most of it.

At that point, you’d start understanding what we’re talking about.

Now, let’s take it a step farther – Grammar (logics);
What if you want to use it? You will want to know:

1. The Arguments – The spectrum of means of argument we’re familiar with
2. Grammar: Human Facilities, Grammar facility, Paradigms/Dimensions, Grammars.
3. The Grammars – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment)
4. The Deceits – How lies, deciets, frauds, and baitings into hazard are constructed

Now, let’s take it a step farther – Grammar (logics);
What if you want to use it? You will want to know:

5. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization – and the Glossary
6. Operational Prose
…. Complete Sentences,
…. Operational vocabulary(actions), and in
…. ePrime – without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were)
7. Promissory Prose  …
8. Full Accounting Prose … – Using Property-in-toto, accounting, financial, economic terms.
9. Parenthetic Prose …. – Parallels between paradigms
10. Enumerative Prose … – Enumerating Series
11. Algorithmic Prose … –  Programmatic construction of arguments.

At that point, you’d start ‘talking funny’ like the rest of us.

Next – Psychology:

15. Acquisition: Acquisition of anything and everything.
16. Man: how the brain works and produces consciousness.
17. Distributions: Genders, Classes, Nations, Races

Next – Sociology (Compatibilism)

18. Compatibilism, Cooperation and we are compatible thru markets

Next – Ethics – Via Positiva (Cooperation)

1. Demonstrated Interests
2. Property-In-Toto  (as a system of measurement of reciprocity.)
1. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)

Next – Epistemology:

14. Metaphysics of Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action.
14. Falsification vs Justification
15. The Epistemic Cycle:
14. Testimony: Testifiability

Next – Law – Via Negativa (Conflict)

20. Jurisprudence 
21. Natural Law Strict construction of law and findings of the court
22. Constitutions in Strict Construction

Next – Economics – Via Positiva (Production of goods, services, information, incentive)

19. Time, Division of Labor,
20. Money Accounting.
19. Micro Economics , Organizations,  through The Civilizational Distribution of Labor
20. Behavioral Economics: Metaphysics, Psychology, Sociology, Politics in Economic Terms.

Next – PoliticsProduction of Commons

19. Perfect Government, Through Ethnonationalism.

Next – Group Competitive Strategy:

1. The Western Group Evolutionary Strategy: The reason for the disproportionate success of West vs the Rest.

Markets in everything

2. The Semitic Group Anti-Evolutionary Strategy: The history of the Conflict between Civilizations, and in particular western eugenic, productive truthful, and Semitic dysgenic, parasitic and deceitful.

3. Other Cultures‘ Group Strategies.

4. Incompatibilism: … Differences between groups

And so;

A Constitution, in P-Law, staring our strategy, restores both our via-Positiva markets for productive cooperation and our via-negativa court-market for the rapid suppression of irreciprocity and fraud.

Including the suppression of (… public speech … )

Thereby preventing the second Semitic destruction of civilization.

The Result.

1. A System of Thought that completes the Aristotelian, Anglo Empirical, American Legal, and European Scientific Program.

2. The Completion of the Scientific Method, and with it, the Empirical Revolution. By Completing the Empirical Revolution, We complete the Social Sciences. By Completing the Social Sciences we Produce The Logic Of Social Sciences

3. The Logic of the Social Sciences is a A Universal, Value-Neutral, Formal, Operational, Logic and Method, of Metaphysics, Psychology, Ethics, Morality, Politics, Group Evolutionary Strategy

4. The result is our ability to construct The Natural Law, in Ratio-Scientific Form, its Methodology, and its Application

  1. We use that natural natural law, to construct a constitution of natural law, and Perfect Government, Institutions, Commons, Norms, and Conditions under Natural Law,

5. This natural law, and perfect government is The Group Evolutionary Strategy of the European Peoples

6. And we can use this law and that government to suppress the second Semitic destruction of the advanced world.

7. …. ( recreating the market for the suppression … ) … ugh

( … )

How Do You Do It?

Turning Ordinary Language Into A System of Measurement

1. Units of Measure

1. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization – and the Glossary

1. Disambiguation: Deflation, Operationalization, Serialization,

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 of them as actions, 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

Disambiguation by Serialization

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

Disambiguation by Redefinition

( … )  moral and ethical overlap

Disambiguation and Deflation by Operationalization.

( … )

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.

Universal Commensurability

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.

2. Measurements (Commensurability)

2. Operational Prose
…. ePrime – without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were)
…. Operational Vocabulary (actions), and in
…. Promissory Prose  …
…. Complete Sentences
…. Full Accounting Prose – Using Property-in-toto, accounting, financial, economic terms.
…. Parenthetic Prose  – Parallels between paradigms
…. Enumerative Prose  – Enumerating Series
…. Algorithmic Prose –  Programmatic construction of arguments.

1. Operational  Prose 

Operational Prose requires we use the following techniques to limit pretense of means of existence, pretense of knowledge, pretense of unaccountability, and possibility ambiguity whether by elimination (leaving out), inflation (adding), conflation(mixing) instead of just stating a description.
…. 1. ePrime – eliminate the verb to-be. (am is, are, was, were)
…. 2. Operational vocabulary(actions),
…. 3. Promissory Form
…. 4. Complete Sentences,
…. 5. Parenthetical Prose
…. 6. Eumeratitve Prose
…. 7. Algorithmic Prose

This set of examples provides a basic understanding of the series of techniques.

  1. From Ordinary Language Question: What is that?
    … Ordinary to Eprime and Operational Answer: It’s a cat -> I see a cat.

We changed from it’s (it is) to I see: from proclamation to testimony. This is an operational transformation. Or in philosophical terms, from an ‘ideal’ to a ‘real’.

In Our english language, we use the grammatical order of subject verb object, and out of habit we create the context using the subject. Jon threw the ball (to Jane). Some other languages, like latin, use say, Subject, Object Verb: Jon (to jane) the ball threw. And still others use The ball, Jon (to Jane) threw, or The ball, (to Jane), Jon threw. Each of these orders requires slightly different habit and changing this habit is work – like learning a foreign language.

Now, langauges differ in the amount of inference required. So we call some languages high context if they requires a lot of inference, and low context if they don’t require much inference.  English is a low context high precision language, with a greedy vocabulary that loves new words, that places more burden on the speaker and on the listener. In exchange for this complexity we find english is very good for legal, technical, and scientific prose – and good for poetic prose dependent on vocabulary,  even if it’s not terribly good for emotional or aesthetic prose dependent upon inference and association, and mutliple meanings.

  1. From Ordinary Language Question: What does it look like?
    … Ordinary to ePrime and Operational to Promissory: The cat is black -> I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat.

We changed I see a black cat from implied or inferred, to testimony and added implied warranty.

  1. From Ordinary to  Operational to Promissory to Fully Accounted:
    … The cat is black -> I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat -> I promise I see a black cat, and if you look at the same cat you will agree you also see a black cat.

We changed from inferred consequences to stated consequences. This produces a sentence that serves as a complete transaction with nothing else implied or assumed. We have eliminated most possible ambiguity, unaccountability, and pretense of knowlege and understanding.

From here on we’re further disambiguating and preventing further errores of inference suggestion or deceit.

  1. From Fully accounted to Parenthetic:
    I promise(testify) I see a black cat (domesticated cat), and if you look(observe with your vision) at the same cat (the one I currently point toward) you will agree(consent) you also see a black(fur) cat(domesticated).

The purpose of parentheticals is to use multiple paradigms (networks of related concepts) to eliminate ambiguity while preserving the consistency of the paradigm, and as such the readability of the underlying sentence. So we have now further reduced

  1. From Fully accounted and Parenthetic to Enumerative:
    I promise that I see a black (fur) domesticated cat, and if you glance, look, observe, stare at the same cat that I currently point toward with your eyes, vision, attention, that you will agree, consent,  that you also see a black( fur) domesticated cat.

The purpose of enumerative, like parenthetical, is to prevent the reader from engaging in mis-interpreteation by making it difficult or impossible to misinterpret your meaning, as is easy when we use a single term. In P-law we use a small number of repetitious enumerations to prevent errors and deceits of inference. The most common examples are:

|True|  False < Truth Candidate(True) < Undecidable < Non-Logical < Nonsensical (Where falsehood(certainty) is always prescedent over truth (Contingency)  This is ternary logic of science, vs the binary logic, or truth table logic you are familiar with in the logic of inference – which is how logic is taught: set inference rather than scientific and contingent. ALmost everything in P requires at least three states Miniumum, medium, maximum in order to falsify the series. “It takes at least Three points test a line”.  In most definitions we will use five and some as many as twelve or more.

|Truth| Tautological < Analytic Truth < Truthful (True) < Honest < Impulsive (unconsidered)

|Falsehoods| ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion (loading, framing) obscurantism, fitionalism (pseudoscience, sophism, occult), fiction (deceit), and denial.

|Epistemology|Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Surviving Theory  >  “Law”

|Testimonial Due Diligence| categorial, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, limited, fully accounted, coherent and warrantied within the limits of restitutability.

|Demonstrated Interests| Self, Mate, Children, Kin, Kith, Capital Property, Several Property, Shared (Shareholder Property), Common(Citizen) Property,  institutional property (norms, laws, institutions), intergenerational property (traditions).

|Harms| Murder, Harm, Damage, Theft, Fraud, Baiting into hazard, free riding, privatizing commons, socializing losses, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest.

|Reciprocal| Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of cost supon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

|Moral| Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good

  1. From Fully accounted, Parenthetic, Enumerated to Algorithmic:

… The Definitions;
… … Commitment { Unsure, Confident, Sure, Promise, Warranty}
… … Look { |Duration|: glance, look, observe, stare }
… … Color(Reflected Color) {|Visible Spectrum|: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet}
… … … Where;
… … … … The sum of Color(Reflected Color) {White}
… … … … The Absence of Color(Reflected Color)} {Black}
… … Fur { |Volume|: Fuzz, Hair, Fur, Coat, Mane}
… … Domesticated Cat: Those “Felids” of Subclass “Domesticated”, including African, Black Footed, Chinese Mountain, Domestic, European Wildcat, Jungle and Sand.

… [name] promises, without warranty, that he currently [location, date and time] observes, and indicates by pointing with his hand, a domesticated cat, with black fur.

… Any observer of this same domesticated cat that [name]points toward, at this location, date and time, shall also observe and agree to the correspondence of [name’s] description of the cat bearing fur of the color black.

That’s a very simple version but that’s how it’s done. And it explains why contract law and propertarian prose sound similar. In this sense propertarianism’s methodology completes the transition of the natural law of tort and contract into the universal language (grammar, paradigm, vocabular and logic) and of social science.

2. Systems of Measurement

4. The Arguments – The spectrum of means of argument we’re familiar with
5. Grammar: Human Facilities, Grammar facility, Paradigms/Dimensions, Grammars.
5. The Grammars – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment)
6. The Deceits – How lies, deciets, frauds, and baitings into hazard are constructed

1. The Arguments

Name Number Math Discipline

2. The Meaning of Grammar


A GRAMMAR (reorganizing the grammatical capacity)

3. The Grammars. – and Deceits. (Which should give you an aha! moment)



Human Perception


Observer, Name,    Verb,   Phrase,   Phrases,  Complete Sentence, Story. 
Observer, Point,   Line,   Plane,    Object,   Change(time),      N-dimensional Change
Observer, Numbers, Arith., Math/Alg, Geometry, Calculus,          Algebraic Geometry



Now you probably know the difference between:
{ math: arithmetic, accounting, algebra, geometry, calculus, and algebraic geometry.}

And you might also know the difference between:
{ logic: … }

And you might also know the difference between:
{ physical science: physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. }

And you might also know the difference between:
{ human science: psychology, sociology, politics and comparative civilizations (anthropology). }

And maybe you thought about the difference between:
{ Storytelling: an essay, a biography, history, a story, literature, and mythology. }

And maybe you thought about the difference between:
{ Logic: The human logical facility(ability), reason, logic, algorithm, procedure (recipe, protocol), calculation, computation }

And maybe you thought about the difference between:
{ Language: The human language facility(ability), human grammar(rules of continuous disambiguation), consent-approval/rejection-disapproval, name, name-modifier, verb(state-operator), verb (state-operator) modifier, phrase, sentence, story. }

You might not know that those differences also exist in the disciplines of truthful speech, and that unspoken discipline of lying.
{ Lying: Loading-Framing, Suggesting-Obscuring, Inflating-Conflating, fictionalisms(Pseudoscience->Magic, Ideal->Surreal, Supernatural-Occult), fiction-lies. }

You might or might not have identified a pattern between all those sets of disciplines

{ … }

But it’s unlikely that you thought about language as a system of measurement using the only system of measurement we have:
{ Senses(Nerves), Associations(Memory), Predictions(Imaginations), Valuations(emotions-predictions), Experiences, Comparisons, Choices, Actions(Motor) }


Psychology (Acquisitionism)

1. Acquisition: Acquisition of anything and everything.
2. Man: how the brain works and produces consciousness.
3. Distributions: Genders, Classes, Nations, Races


Sociology (Compatibilism)

1. Compatibilism, Cooperation and we are compatible thru markets
2. Micro Economics Time, Division of Labor, Organizations,  through The Civilizational Distribution of Labor
3. Behavioral Economics: Metaphysics, Psychology, Sociology, Politics in Economic Terms.

Ethics (Cooperation)

1. Demonstrated Interests
2. Property-In-Toto  (as a system of measurement of reciprocity.)
3. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)

1. Demonstrated Interest (instead of ‘morality’)

( … )

2. Reciprocity (instead of ‘morality’)

Given the Choices of
…. (i) Avoidance (ii) Cooperation and (iii) Conflict;
And Given the Choices of ;
…. (iv) The returns on Cooperation,
…. (v) The returns on future Cooperation,
…. (vi) The cost of provoking retaliation;
Thou shalt not;
…. by display, word, or deed,
…. or
…. absence of display, word or deed,
…. impose costs upon the demonstrated Interests of others (property-in-toto),
…. …. either directly or indirectly,
…. those Interests were obtained by
…. …. Settlement (homesteading, conversion, or first use)
…. …. or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange
in the absence of;
…. such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others.

3. Property-In-Toto  (Demonstrated Interest as a system of measurement of reciprocity.)



3. Epistemology

14. Metaphysics of Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action.
14. Falsification vs Justification
15. The Epistemic Cycle:
14. Testimony: Testifiability

1. Metaphysics

Action: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism, Logicism, Rational Choice – Action.

2. Falsification vs Justification


3. The Epistemic Cycle

|Universal Epistemology| : Free Association**(survived minimum relations for cognizance) -> **Hypothesis** (survived rational falsification) -> **Theory** (survived empirical falsification) -> **Law** (survived applied falsification).

A FACT consists of a promise of a theory of an observation.

A THEORY consists of (i) A method of producing decidability in a context, and  (ii) A story for searching for possibilities to apply the method of decidability.

A TRUTH Proposition consists of a promise of a theory of an observable, *Including the reciprocally subjectively testable*.

4. Testimony (instead of ‘truth’)

( … )

Epistemology (Knowledge)

|Testimonial Truth| : A promise that the correspondence between the experience invoked in the audience by the statement and something observable: open to senses(physical), emotions(Intuitionistic), or mind(intellectual) – satisfies the demand for decidability (correspondence), given the consequences and demand for restitution upon ignorance, error, bias, or deceit.

In practice, we use Fact for measurements or records of existentially observable reality, and objective Truth is a ‘fuzzier term’ that attempts to include statements about language (verbalisms) and to attribute to them the freedom from error, bias, and deceit of facts.

In other words, these terms are specific (fact) and loose (Objective) assertions of the absence of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. We use the via positiva assertion “True”, meaning rather than the via negativa assertion “free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit” for brevity and habit, despite the fact that the term true can and only can mean ‘free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit given the scope of externalities of the question (harm)”. Because that is all it is possible to know.

The completion of Aristotle’s Project, by the solution to the Human Sciences, the way that the people in the 1800’s found the solution to the physical sciences, the way that the British enlightenment found the solution
Supply and Demand vs Sets

Falsification: Is it Possible For You To Make A Truth Claim?

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 MeasurementA 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.


4. Result in:

We search for truthful statements. Because that is all we can know.

A Demand for Ideal Truth, in the form of Truthful Speech, consists of a Demand for Decidability in Display, Word, and Deed, in Answer To a Given Question.

Decidability: A Demand For Decidability in Display Word and Deed:

a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the “system”(ie: grammar).

b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).

Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

Given These Dimensions of Actionable Reality:

  1. Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
  2. Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
  3. Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
  4. Preference (dislike, nutral, beneficial, rational preference, reciprocal good)
  5. Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

Therefore These dimensions of actionable reality yield the Series:

  1. Indistinguishable(perception) >
  2. Distinguishable(cognition) >
  3. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
  4. Possible(material) >
  5. Actionable(physical) >
  6. Choosable(for use) >
  7. Preferable(Personal) >
  8. Good(interpersonal) >
  9. Decidable(political) >
  10. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
  11. Analytic >
  12. Tautological.

Yields Demand for the Infallibility of Decidability in The Series:

  1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
  2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
  3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
  4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
  5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
  6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
  7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (‘True’)
  8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
  9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

Where Truth Consists in The Series

  1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
  2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
  3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
  4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
  5. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

  1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
  2. Internally Consistent (Reasonable, Rational, Logical)
  3. Externally Consistent (Correspondent) (Empirical)
  4. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
  5. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
  6. Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
  7. And Fully Accounted within Stated Limits (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
  8. And Warrantied;

… (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

As a Defense Against the Series
(ignorance, error, bias deceit fraud and baiting into hazard):

  1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
  2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
  3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
  4. And the many Deceits of:
    … (a) Loading and Framing;
    … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
    … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
    … (d) and outright Fabrications.
    … (e) denial.
  5. Baiting into Hazard
  6. Or any combination thereof – in particular the Abrahamic method.

In Defense or Advocacy Of:

1. Any transfer that is not:
… (a) productive
… (b) fully informed
… (c) warrantied
… (d) voluntary
… (e) free of externality of the same criteria

Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of Irreciprocity:

1. murder,
2. harm, damage, theft,
3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, baiting into hazard
4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
5. rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
6. conversion(religion/pseudoscience),
7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
8. conquest (war).


Law – Via Negativa (Conflict)

20. Jurisprudence 
21. Natural Law Strict construction of law and findings of the court
22. Constitutions in Strict Construction

Economics – Via Positiva (Production of goods, services, information, incentive)

10. Time

PoliticsProduction of Commons

19. Perfect Government, Through Ethnonationalism.

Then …. (…)

Before Propertarianism, very different disciplines.

Sciences....Soft Sciences...Philosophy...Law......Logic....Math
Cog Sci.....Psychology......Metaphysics.

After Propertarianism: They’re all Commensurable Grammars

... Micro-Subatomic
... Macro-Astronomy
... Human-Scale-Physics
... Chemistry
... Bio-Chemistry
... Genetics
... Biology
... ... Life Forms 
... ... Ecology (life systems)
... Cog Sci (Disambiguation)
... Acqusition (Psychology)
... Language (continuous recursive disambiguation)
... ... Metaphysics (Paradigms).
... ... Grammars
... Epistemology 
... Ethics
... Law
... Economics
... Politics
... Group Strategy

It’s easier to say how to do it.

  1. Collect an inventory:
    Take the philosophical categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics;
    Take the scientific method and what we learned about it in the last century
    Take the human sciences: cog sci, psychology, sociology, economics, law, politics;
    Take language.. including grammar etc…

i) inventory the synonyms and antonyms. three is minimum, five better, seven or more best.
ii) Order them into a series or spectrum either from more to less, less to more, or middle to less on one side and middle to more on the other. (there are more options but this is the simplest)
iii) define them in operational language: as a series of actions.
iv) if necessary modify the definitions so that they don’t overlap.
v) Define this ‘series’ by whatever property or properties it shares, again, in operational language.

Now, just as when, in arithmetic, every number has a unique name, every name is ordered on a line, and while two points make a line, three points test a line, and more points test the consistency of line even better.

And while a number is the name of a position, and that’s all it is: the name of a position in an order – our names are ….

In most cases, when say ‘moral’ and you hear ‘moral’, we might both associate that word with a vague notion of ‘good somehow’.

Do you understand the difference between mathematics, physical science, the logics,  programming, economics, legal testimony, ordinary speech, narration, fiction, the fictionalisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and theology?

Do you understand the difference between Aristotelianism including Empiricism and Mathematics is vs say Platonism, Confucianism, Abrahamic Monotheism, Buddhism, Confucianism?

That’s how to think about Testimony (propertarianism)

The Completion of the scientific method; Producing a formal methodology, vocabulary, grammar of both truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech; restating all disciplines in that truthful and reciprocal speech. including producing a law of truthful and reciprocal speech.

Producing a formal methodology, vocabulary, grammar of both truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech; restating all disciplines in that truthful and reciprocal speech. including producing a law of truthful and reciprocal speech.

Testimony (Propertarianism) consists of
… the use of procedural falsification;
… in all dimensions of human perception;
… resulting in the completion of the Scientific Method ;
… its application to the totality of human knowledge;
… resulting in a universally commensurable language of all thought;
… its embodiment in the common law of tort;
… its use in the construction of a template for constitutions;
… and as a consequence creating a market for the prosecution  of;
… … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit
… and the eradication of:
… … … superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit
… from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons;
… reversing the second Semitic attempt at the destruction of Western Civilization as it has destroyed every other by systematic undermining from within;
… and restoring the quality of life we have expected from Western Civilization;
… for those that live today, and those that will yet live in the future;”

But what does that mean?

It means a body of inviolable law, a constitution built from it, a law that encourages the prosecution of enemies rather than protecting them, and a system of government that restores and preserves that constitution and our way of life, and the uniqueness of Western Civilization for eternity.


European Mythology +European Evidentiary Customary Law  +  European Geometry > Socratic Argument >  Aristotelian Reason and Naturalism > Roman Law and Administration > Anglo Empiricism and Realism > 20th Century Operationalism > Doolittle’s Testimonialism (we unfortunately call propertarianism).




This series is provided by the Propertarian Institute.

Goals: Until the 20th century, education was reserved for those who would Rule (manage) other people: the various levels of the Aristocracy(Military), Nobility(Territorial) and Burgher(Commercial), and Intellectual(Teaching) classes. With the dawn of industrialism we altered education to serve the working and labor classes.  With the dawn of Postwar socialism we altered education to serve the interests of compliant subjects.  What we have done below is restore ‘Victorian Education’, and reform the traditional curriculum in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and War from one constructed of literature and reason, to one constructed of scientific argument and measurement. By restoring the function of law, education and literature, we can restore our historical education in Transcendence, heroism, sovereignty and agency, rather than Dysgenia, victimhood, slavery, and submission of the 20th century age of deceit.


Note To Self: / Topics to Add:

  • Commensurability of property / money
  • Commensurability of time like property and money
  • Time > store property > store money > borrow money > borrow credit.
  • The forms of physical, informational, organizational, institutional, competitive parasitism
  • Family property, structures, norms, economies

Introductory Courses

001 – Introduction to the Courses What Will We Learn?

  1. Me: Who am I?
    • My history, biases, talents and weaknesses
      • I have taught these kinds of classes. I have not taught this class, or anything of this scale. You should not expect me to be of teh same clalibre of speaker as professors who have spent careers teaching.
      • My talents, biases and weaknesses
      • I have a reputation for being difficult to understand below graduate students in the STEM classes.  But I will work relatively hard to communicate to you the best that I can.  Some of these concepts are not easy.
      • About me: Family tradition, My History,
      • I am libertarian in my sentiments, but scientific in my judgements.I may confuse you by taking various positions in order to illustrate ideas.
    • but if I am successful…
      • It will profoundly change you.  If we are successful, this will be one of the most meaningful experiences of your life.
  2. YOU: Why you might want to take these courses:
    1. You might want to learn why the west differs from the rest – and its strengths and weaknesses – so that you can appreciate your civilization and its weaknesses.  Or take lessons from western civilization and apply them to yours.  This is not very difficult to understand. It’s undergraduate level thought.
    2. You might want to understand the cause of our current problems, and how we can fix them.
    3. You might want to learn a current, and somewhat different history of the world, using conceptual, argumentative, social, and institutional strategies – so that you understand the struggle that we have faced in each era of history, and defend your civilization.  Again, this isn’t terribly difficult, although it is definitely undergraduate level thought.
    4. You might want to learn to how to argumentatively defend western civilization, or to apply the lessons of western civilization to your civilization, nation, people.  If you can learn a programming language you should be able to conduct an argument if you have the practice. Whether you understand why such arguments work may or may not be important to you.
    5. You might want to learn how to unify biology, morality, ethics, philosophy, science, law, and government into a single language, so that you can understand all human action and all human discourse in the most scientifically neutral manner possible. This is quite hard….
    6. You might want to learn how to construct a post-majoritarian government, in order to restore western civilization – or apply those lessons to yours.
    7. You might want to learn how to conduct a revolution and reform your system of government into one that is post-majoritarian, and less antagonistic.
    8. …. So if one or more of those interests you, even if you must struggle through the hard parts, it may be worth it for you.  If not, then use what you can.
  3. YOU: Who this course is for (and who it is not)
    • This course is for serious thinkers who are or desire to be, communicators of the western group evolutionary strategy in rational  and scientific terms, argumentative activists in the public debate, activist revolutionaries, and would-be revolutionary leaders.
    • If you want to feel good about what you already believe I promise you that  your sacred cows will not survive this course.  I have learned that most of what I believe is half good and half bad.  Revolutions in thought are not kind to us.  And Propertarianism, like Darwin, is uncomfortable.  I will be unmerciful to every culture in these courses, including my own.
    • On average it takes people above 140IQ about six months to a year without these courses. I have no idea what will happen with these courses. I suspect it will improve.  It takes people with above 130IQ about a year.  And it takes people above 120 quite a bit longer.  And as others have observed, it is quite difficult to learn the more difficult concepts below 115. HOWEVER, it is also possible that you can take away all the majority content of this if you have only one or two years of college.
  4. How we will run this course.
    • This is not a multiple-choice course – it requires my active participation – with you.
    • There are also others who may assist you. We are available much of the time for Q&A.
    • Each course includes a series of videos, definitions and wiki articles to read, and some questions to answer in writing.
  5. What this course requires of you, and me (the professor).
    • Time. It is only worth spending my time on serious students. It will require your time.
    • Short Readings. I will attempt to limit reading to (free) entries from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Wikipedia articles wherever possible. However, I do publish an extensive reading list.  I leave the reading up to you. My purpose is to teach you techniques through practice. Not to manage your accumulation of general knowledge. (We also have an enormous library in digital form)
    • Answers: Since the purpose of propertarianism is teaching prosecution and argument under natural law, you will be asked to write answers to questions. This is more time consuming than multiple choice questions for both of us.
    • Comments. Collaborating with others on the class forums.
  6. So lets get started.  Next: What’s Propertarianism, anyway?


COURSE 002 – What is Propertarianism?

  1. What is Propertarianism?
    1. In a Word : Reciprocity.  Or “Reciprocal-ism, or Reciprocity-ism”

      A scientific, meaning descriptive, meaning “what exists”, or “what is”, not what should be – a statement of Natural Law.

      What is Natural Law?
      A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.

      What do you mean by ethics?
      The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.

      What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?


      In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.

      In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

      As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

      —“All of ethics can be reduced to the evaluation of the degree of reciprocity and the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus

      Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.

      **All conflicts are decidable by a full accounting and a test of reciprocity**




    1. Why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism?

      Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors.

      We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation.

      But calling what I do “Propertarianism”, is a bit like reducing the whole of philosophy into the sub-discipline of ethics.  Propertarianism refers ONLY to the ethical component of the philosophy.

      So, Propertarianism is sort of a ‘Brand Name” that we stuck with, so that it was not confused with other thought.

      But let’s say propertarianism consists of a complete philosophical framework that unites science, biology, morality, ethics, law, politics, and anthropology into a single language of ‘truthful speech’.

      Or, more precisely, it is a language of commensurability across all disciplines, all norms, all laws, all governments, all cultures, and all civilizations.

      A universal language of decidability and truth telling.  At least. The best that is humanly possible.


      And what does COMMENSURABILITY mean?

      1. Just as using a yardstick lets us compare the size of things regardless of our opinions.
      2. Just as using a scale lets us balance weights of different things regardless of our opinions.
      3. Just as water in a graduated cup lets us measure volumes
      4. Just as using money creates prices, which let us compare goods(things), services (actions), and information (knowledge) regardless of our opinions.
      5. Property in its most complete form lets us compare acts of cooperation, non-cooperation, and predation regardless of our opinions.
      6. We call measurements, scales, prices, and property: methods of commensurability: allowing us to  measure that which we intuitively can’t.
      7. Property (at least, property in its most full meaning) provides commensurability for all cooperative actions: physical, ethical, moral, political, national, and civilizational.
      8. But I’ll bet that means something very different from what you might imagine….
  3. But what is a ‘law’.  How does Natural Law fit in?


DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’).

1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature, or of man(polity, or government).

4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).

5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.

6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).

7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.


1 – CYCLE: Observation > Free association > Hypothesis > Criticism > Theory > Survival > Law > Integration into assumptions about the world.

2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,

3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law).  While natural law is ancient, propertariansm converts it from reasonbleness to rational and scientific.

4 — Law (Information): a statement of perpetual continuity (parsimony), insured by the *results of cooperation among men*.  or better said, by survival from competition against other sentient beings – and perhaps our survival *at all*.  While epistemology is ancient, Testimonialism completes it – by converting it from rational to ratio-scientific.

We will spend most of our time on Natural Law (Propertarianism) and Informational Law (Testimonialism).

Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insured by an empire.

  1. However, as I have mentioned previously, what and we will cover:
    1. an explanation of the causes of western superiority in the ancient and modern worlds;  an explanation of our current problems; and how to repair them. So that section is HISTORY.
    2. a reformation and unification of science, philosophy, law, and politics into a single uniform system of thought, language, and grammar.  This constitutes the majority of the course. This section is the UNIFICATION of science and philosophy under Natural Law and Testimonialism.
    3. a suggested evolution upon majoritarian democracy with which to solve the political problems of the era. This section is the reformation of POLITICS.
    4. TRANSFORMATION:the method of conducting a revolution for the purpose of restoring the western group strategy and evolving majoritarianism.  This is the means of revolutionary action.
  2. Now as some background, How did Propertarianism (Natural Law) Come About?
    1. I hate conflict.  I hate lying. I hate things that don’t make sense. (aspieness)
    2. Starting in 1992…. A language for Conservatives. Then….
    3. 2006 – needed a history
    4. 2009 – solved history and government, but … how do I stop and counter cultural marxism?
    5. 2012 – solved the problem of the 2oth century thinkers
    6. 2014 – solved the problem of telling the truth
  3. But I understood the problem of our age: the industrial revolution, and the social science enlightenment in the 19th century, and the second german scientific revolution of the 19th century,  brought forth the industrialization of lying.  And it turns out, this isn’t the first time lying has won over truth…. So next lets get started with What Problem Do Propertarianism (reciprocity) and Testimonialism( science ) solve?






COURSE 004 – What Problem Does Propertarianism Solve?

  1. The Waves of Man (Generations).
  2. Geography and Man’s Strategy
    1. Island, Coastal, Forest, Steppe(plains), Desert
    2. Latitudes and Life
    3. Competition and Tribalism
  3. Origins of each major civilization – and its strategies.
    1. Origins and Strategies
    2. The Rise and Fall of the Civilizations
    3. The Set of Patterns of History
  4. Revolution: Why the west was and is different
  5. Counter-Revolution: The Attack on the West in Each Era
    1. Bronze, Iron, Dark, Steel Ages
  6. The Current Problem (The Current Counter-Revolution)
    1. The industrialization of lying
  7. The Disastrous War and the Failure of the 20th Century Intellectuals



FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. (Profiting from the domestication of man)

– BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means.

– STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory.

— FERTILE CRESCENT LAND: (Profit from the subjugation of man) (cyrus was lost).

– RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. (Profiting from the domestication of man)

– DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost.

– HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now).

It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies.




Part I – The Beginning – Sovereignty, and The Counter Revolution against it. (Bronze Age – Black Sea)

Part II – The Counter Revolution Against Reason and Sovereignty. (Iron Age – Aegean-Mediterranean)

Part III – The Counter Enlightenment Against Science and Sovereignty. (Steel Age – North Sea-Atlantic) 

The Anglos (Legal Empiricists / Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), French (Literary Moralists / Rousseau) and The Germans (Literary Rationalists / Kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms.

So did the Cosmopolitan Universalist Jews ( Argumentative Fictionalists (pseudo-mythology[authoritarian religion] / pseudo-law/ pseudo-rationalism / pseudoscience / outright-lying)) advocating separatism, poly-ethicalism, fictional utopianism as a universal ‘moral’ strategy.

The Cosmopolitan Universalists (Jews) started producing pseudoscience as the enlightenment change rolled across Eastern Europe, (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt) primarily as a reaction to the articulation of aristocratic thought in scientific terms (Darwin, Social Science, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Romanticists.)

( FYI: Marxism: parasitism upon in-group private production. Libertarianism: parasitism upon in-group commons production. Neo-Conservatism: Parasitism upon other nations’  (out-group) private and commons production. )

While the Germans defended against the enlightenment by rational restatement of hierarchy, duty, and reason in a new literary fashion invented by Kant. The French, Jewish and Russian together attacked the Anglo Enlightenment: the restoration of sovereignty and the attack on Fictionalism which all those nations depended upon. They each responded with a new fictionalism: The French out of feminine idealism and preservation of authority, Jews out of separatism, fear and preservation of authority, and Russians out of opportunity for aggression, restoration of orthodox civilization, usurpation, and preservation of authority – and our Puritans (anglo separatist equivalent of the Jews), and our women (as always) were, frankly, “suckers” for it. Just as they were in the ancient world.

The Great Catastrophe 

Just as Byzantium overextended herself and lost to the Turks. Just as Persia and Byzantium overextended themselves and lost to Arabs. Just as Rome overextended herself in Europe and lost to Byzantium; Just as Athens overextended herself in Sicily, and lost to Sparta; Just as the Bronze Age civilizations overextended themselves in the eastern mediterranean and lost to the barbarians. Just as all civilizations overextended themselves, Britain, in an effort to preserve the balance of powers from which she profited, constrained Germany, leaving America as her heir.

Just as Athenian democratic greed prematurely ended the first industrial revolution (the Antikithera device only one step removed from Babbage’s mechanical computer), leaving pragmatic Rome to rule with Athenian and Carthaginian invention – the British, French, and American democratic (commercial) greed ended the second (this time German) scientific revolution, leaving pragmatic America to rule with German and British inventions.

The European civil war to contain Germany was a catastrophe for the West in that it both truncated the completion of the Enlightenment (scientific revolution), whose second phase, and our rescue from eastern mysticism, was in progress in Germany (and from which 19th and 20th century America was the chief beneficiary – not originator.)

It cast doubt upon the Western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. Thereby reversing our prior gains against supernatural utopianism and the restoration of aristocratic (rule of law) rule, and replacing that supernatural utopianism with economic and political utopianism: pseudoscience.

Postwar Jews immigrating to the United States used their pseudoscience (see “Pilpul”) and attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order.

Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, seek the vote, and then using the vote, to claim men were their enemies and oppressors rather than their domesticators in a great compromise between the reproductive strategies of women (numbers) – their genes, and those of men (the tribe) – their genes.

Once the slaves had been freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further by creating a century of pseudoscience.

They used this pseudoscience to pursue the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas.

Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Women were sold Christianity. Women were sold Cosmopolitanism. Therefore the industrialization of lying found ready consumers. In marketing and advertising, in media and entertainment, and in democratic politics. The insatiable desire of women to consume, preen, signal, nest, care, and redistribute regardless of long term consequences, provided ready ground for the utopian ideology of endless resources provided by endless growth and the end of constraint.

The Failure of Western Thinkers

Western thinkers (for a variety of reasons) in the 20th century were unable to defeat this pseudoscientific utopian fiction, just as Western thinkers had been unable to defeat the previous age’s supernatural utopian fiction in the ancient world.

As Poincare (mathematics) and Friedrich Hayek (economics and law) warned us, the twentieth century would be, and was, regressive in social science, economics, and politics – and it will be remembered as an age of mysticism (actually an age of fictionalism). Even though our progress in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering, and Information Technology — all products of the truncated German Scientific Revolution – combined with the continued sale of the conquered American continent, combined with the inheritance of the British Empire, combined with the new (now necessary) invention of fiat (stock) money, gave 19th and 20th century America a vast economic boom, which allowed the USA to drag recidivist civilizations (those that adopted the new Jewish Fictionalisms under world communism, socialism, social democracy, and Keynesian non-operational Economics) out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease and tyranny.

Why? Because democracy in the ancient and modern world was nothing but a lie by which the middle class could take over the government from the aristocracy – and then over-extend growth until the polity developed economic, political, social, and genetic fragility. Our Western habit. One the Chinese did not practice. (If you must expand to grow productivity you are not in fact productive and innovative, but consumptive.)

But neither the Western Aristocracy, nor its bourgeoise caste could speak the truth: that man, like plant and other animal, had been domesticated for fun and profit by the imposition of meritocracy by shrinking the reproduction of the lower classes, – and that the differences in the rate of development of civilizations is the result of the shrinking of the underclasses, making possible the progress of the civilization in every possible field of endeavor: linguistic, informational, economic, normative, social, cultural, political, and institutional.

The lesson: In the absence of profit through conquest, the most eugenic civilization will always emerge as the most advanced civilization. And this uncomfortable truth is incompatible with unearned (universal) enfranchisement that justifies bourgeoise takeover of government from the aristocracy.

PART IV – What Must Be Done? ( The Second Reformation Against Parasitism and Deceit. )

So armed with this knowledge, how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the Jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons?

We extend the warranty of due diligence against fraud that we require in products in the market, and services in the market, to cover information in the market, and we restore liability to all participants in a chain of production. We eliminate the economic subsidy for ‘entertainment’ we call copyright. We eliminate financial profiting from the sale of shares of the polity (Fiat Money, or for ordinary people, ‘dollars’ in the form of electronic money), preserving all of the appreciation and interest for the polity (treasury). And we grant universal standing (class action) to defense of the market for information. Eventually, we create separate houses of government for separate classes. And we eliminate representatives and change to direct per-resolution, democracy. This will raise the cost of the various fictionalisms (pseudo-myths/religion, pseudo-rationalisms, pseudo-science, and outright deceit) and eliminate its profitability such that we end the industrialization of lying made possible by mass media.

This solution is an incremental advancement upon classical multi-house government in which each class negotiates with other classes for the production of commons, while suppressing the consistent deception (lying) that has been made possible by the industrialization of information distribution (media).

By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the West’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. Then using this knowledge to defeat this great utopian pseudoscientific lie, even though we failed in the 20th century, and even though we failed in the ancient world against utopian supernaturalism.

Our ambition is to require truthful speech in economics, politics, and law, the way we require truthful speech in contract, in the market for goods, and in the market for services. There is no reason that one cannot warranty his speech against the great utopian lies if he is to publish it (sell it, distribute it) in the market for information we call ‘the media’.

The West practiced Agency, Sovereignty, Testimony in Deflationary Truth, Natural Law of Cooperation, Markets in Everything, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), and the Militia – and profited from the incremental domestication of the animal man lacking agency, in to the human that possesses it. But this strategy was never written down, only handed down.


So, next lets get started with solving the problem of the industrialization of lying, with “what is philosophy” anyway?

Freshman – the Reformation of Epistemology and Truth – (Testimonialism)

Course 101 – Languages, Methods of argument, and Via-Negativa vs Via-Positiva, Methods of communication suggestion and deceit.

Note: This course is difficult for those without experience in either mathematics(the logic of the measurement of constant relations), philosophy (Rationalism), law (contract), or the scientific method (Empiricism).  We will practice this method incrementally throughout the entire set of courses. So it is not so much that this course is first, and you must master it first, but that the rest of the courses depend upon it, and you will master it incrementally as we progress through the courses.

Via Negativa (Survival) vs Via Positiva (Possibility)

  1. The Problem of Scale in Modernity (and limits)
  2. The difference between positiva and negativa (and limits)
  3. The change in demand from positiva to negativa (and new limits)
  4. Our failure in the 20th century to complete the transition to via-negativa

Production – it’s just not goods, but norms, traditions, institutions, all the way up to civilizations

Parasitism – It’s Not Just Violence.

  1. The Methods of Extermination, Predation, Parasitism, Risk(investment), Cooperation, Avoidance and Boycott…. etc
  2. The Methods of violence, harm, theft, fraud, ….. etc.
  3. The Migration of Predation from Violence, to Theft, To Fraud …. As Civilization … and Property advance.
  4. The Migration of War from ….. to information
  5. The Problems of our Age:
    • Deception (Pseudoscience and Pseudo-rationalism)
    • Financial-ism and Fiat Money
    • Democracy and Universal Enfranchisement
    • The Cathedral Complex; Academy, State, Media, and Finance: The industrialization of lying, fraud, and theft.
    • The End of Western Capital.

Understanding Communication

  1. Information is the model not only in physics, but in all thought (Theory, Science).
    • The Information Theory Of Cooperative Evolution
      • narrative, recording, numbers, recipes, symbols, formula, arguments, contracts, narratives, algorithms, programs, models, simulations, games.
      • sand, clay, was, papyrus, parchment, paper, scrolls, books, magazines,
      • accounts, accounting, … journals, hierarchal data, relational data, document data, geometries, pure relations, lie groups (meaning)
      • tribal memory and reputation,
      • habits, norms, philosophies, laws, religions,
    • History of thought models
    • Information as the current model
  2. How information is transferred (Properties)
    • The basics – venn diagrams.
    • The art of suggestion by association
    • The art of clarification by reduction
  3. Conflation(Positiva-Meaning) and Deflation (Negativa-Truth)
    • The conflation of the useful and the good with the true.
  4. The Languages we can speak in ( the series )
    • Each of the languages (measurements, technologies)
    • Each of the Arguments We Make
    • The “Poly-Think-ism” of the west.
  5. The Four Techniques,
    • Dreaming (occult) Free Association
    • Fictionalism(Mythology), Narration
    • Idealism(Rationalism), Ideal Analogy
    • Descriptivism(History and Law) Existential Analogy
    • Measurement (Math and Identity) Existential Description
  6. The Problem of the Distribution of Ability

The Difference between Decidable, Preferable, and Understandable

  1. A Short Course in Decidability
  2. A Short Course in Measurement
  3. A Short Course in Truth (scale)
  4. A Short Course in Preference (scale)
  5. A Short Course in the “Good” (preferable) vs “Bad” (Knowable)

The Methods of Deception

  1. Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance
  2. Cognitive Biases
  3. Wishful Thinking
  4. Suggestion, Loading and Framing
  5. Overloading, Propagandizing, Mass Media
  6. Fictionalizing (Pseudo-mysticism, Pseudo-Rationalism, and Pseudoscience)
  7. Outright Deceit
  8. Evasion: Shaming, Rallying.

The Defense against Deception

  1. The (Universal) Law of Epistemology (Theoretical/True vs Axiomatic/Proof)
  2. The Use of Convergence (competition) to narrow the difference
  3. The Problem of the Conflation in the Grammar of Observation, Experience, Intention, and Action
    • The solution by using actions.
  4. The Dimensions of Reality (using Math as an analogy)
    • Reality – the Dimensions we can act in (Here is our Metaphysics)
    • Mathematics as an example – reality through relations through lie groups.
    • Names, ideal types, stereotypes, comparisons, series,
  5. The Methods of Testing Reality (Testimonialism)
  6. Calculating “Volition”, “Information”, “Externality”, “Warranty”, “Balance Sheets” and “Profit and Loss” rather than just ‘true’ or ‘good’.
  7. The Meaning of the Scientific Method: instruments, measurements, warranty
  8. Why Propertarianism Completes the Scientific Method – and why it’s a method.



Course 102 – OUR DEFENSE: The Language of Natural Law-

This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you  may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose).  However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well.

  1. Definitions
    Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.)
  2. One Law of Cooperation.
    The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended).
  3. Property In Toto
    The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet.
  4. Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions
    The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language.
  5. Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure)
    Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know.  We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand.  It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know.
  6. Structuring Arguments as Functions
    Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’.
  7. Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression 
    The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.

So if you have to know what humans do: seek to acquire and preserve property in toto rationally – meaning both morally and immorally, and if you know what you’re talking about using E-Prime, and you write in complete sentences so you can’t suggest or intimate, but have to describe, and you are using precise terms from enumerated lists (spectrums), then you have the basics down.  Learning these skills amounts to Propertarianism’s equivalent of the replacement of and reformation of ‘Psychology’.


Course 100 – What is Philosophy (and what pretends to be)

(outline of class 100)


There is a difference between precision vs context,  (disassociation vs opportunity for association  – or DEFLATION VS CONFLATION)

  1. name – i know of.  no context low association
  2. formula or recipe or algorithm
  3. description or history – observations
  4. story or narration – theories of causality
  5. parable (analogy)  – high context high association – lesson in causality
  6. supernatural – ideal context

and (style)

  1. Entertainment Literature
  2. Mythic literature (wisdom and entertainment),
  3. ‘Wisdom’ literature,
  4. Legal literature, and
  5. Scientific literature.

and (class)

  1. judge, warrior, (violence)
  2. priest, teacher, mother (persuasion)
  3. financier, entrepreneur, merchant ( organization)
  4. scientist, craftsman ( transformation)


And that differences in the method that they’re argued.

Western Philosophy (reason and measurement)
… Martial Cult of Sovereignty: (upper class)
… IE Polytheism and Nature Worship. (not sure it’s shamanism)
… Aristotle (law, reason, measurement, aristocratic/martial class)
… Plato (idealism, rationalism) Middle Bureaucratic Class
… Epicurious, Stoics, etc – various middle classes
… Aquinas ( supernaturalism, conflation) Lower Classes
… Martial Cult (upper) (administrative)
… Rational Philosophy, Empiricism, and Law (middle/upper middle)
… … bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson/ menger/darwin/maxwell etc (commercial)
… Christianity (working and lower)(public)
… Pagan fables, myths and Rituals (hearth and home)

We tend to think of classes as a pyramid, but this isn’t quite true. As Ill explain later on, The classes that employ force, trade, and gossip, compete with one another, and dominate during different periods of any civilization, and under different conditions in any civilization.

It just so happens that in most civilizations the people who rule in practice are the miiltary and judicial and hold the most power, the people who organize production and trade at all levels the next, and the people who ‘gossip’ the least. conversely, there are more people who use gossip, fewer who organize, and fewer who fight and rule.

However, I often refer to classes as martial force, commercial trade, and priestly or public intellectual gossip. But I will cover class cooperation in depth as we go forward. Even though I realize that it might be confusing which ‘class’ context I am using at any given time.

Eastern ( ‘reasonableness’ and contrast)
… Sun Tzu (aristocratic / martial class)
… Confucius (middle/bureacratic class)
… Lao Tzu (lower/farming class)

(Note the difference between western low context-high precision linguistic syllogism, and eastern hgh context-lowe precision linguistic ‘riddles’ or contrasts.)

Middle Eastern (supernatural wisdom literature, and compliance)

… Early(Advanced Shamanism)
… … Egyptian Mythical (mythic literature) (unknown authors)
… … Hinduism (vedas, classes) (all classes)

… Upper
… … Martial Cult? ( shamanic? I don’t know)

… Upper Middle / Bureaucratic
… … Iranian / Zoroaster / Zarathustra (authoritarian supernatural scripture)
… …(Upper middle, Middle class snuffed after Cyrus/Darius/Darius)

… Lower Class
… …Semitism/Abrahamism (slave and lower classes)
… … … Abraham (Separatist)
… … … Paul/Saul (feminine)
… … … Muhammed (masculine)

So, we tend to use our western word “philosophy”, and lump together different kinds of wisdom literature, historical and legal literature, and scientific literature into the same camps.

But western and eastern literature differ dramatically from middle eastern literature which claims other-worldly authority; eastern literature that claims hierarchical authority; and wetsern literature that claims *market authority*. But to explain that difference is going to take a bit of work for you and I.


(…. on naming… how can we name something… a referent )

Originally? The sum of knowledge within a domain.

But why would you need knowledge?
a) Action (preference, personal)
b) Persuasion ( cooperation, interpersonal )
c) Decidability ( conflict resolution, between any and all )
Philosophy: the search for methods of action, persuasion, and decision in a given domain of inquiry.


And why would we need Truth?
The search for methods of decidability regardless of domain of inquiry, regardless of preference(action) or utility (persuasion, cooperation).

(…Elaborate on parsimony and precision…)
(…show how we create universes of possibilities… and narrow them)
(…and we continuously revise until we can act upon them …)
(…and then in this way we see we seek opportunities, advance, and seize them…more so than plan….)

As such there exist many philosophies Utilitarian in context, but only one Truth (decidability) regardless of context.

But what does that mean?

True enough for the consequences:

a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
b) True enough for me to feel good about myself.
c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
g) True regardless of all opinions or preferences.
h) Tautologically true: in that the two things are indifferent in properties, operations, and relations

Which gives us:.

  1. Philosophy and True-enough within a domain: opportunities.
  2. Law and True, regardless of domain: decidabilities.




Methods of Communication:

a) actions and therefore transformations
b) causations and therefore opportunities.
c) deceptions and therefore coercions.

Methods of comparison:

a) Categories, stereotypes, ideal types. (categories)
b) Golden mean (comparisons / valuations)
c) Series (exhaustive deconflations).
d) Equilibria. In human terms: Triangles (supply vs demand)
e) Models / Simulations (sets of equilibria)
f) The Universe as it Exists (all equilibrial forces)

A Note on the use of Triangles, lines, types.

Descartes made good use of the graph, and Gauss has made good use of the bell curve – a normal distribution. And Cournot and Marshall made good use of the supply and demand curve. These tools help us visualize aggregates – lots of stuff – in simple terms.  Today we create models and simulations, and we are largely limited only by our ability to collect sufficient information to improve our models and simulations.

I’m going to use a lot of defintions (points), spectra (lines), and triangles (equilibria), and only resort to supply and demand curves when I have no other choice.


1) first, because it’s pretty simple to visualize. and by using a definition(point), spectra(line), triangle (area) I can help cue (suggest or train) you in which tool to use when making your arguments. this helps make a visual association – a symbol for the different processes.

2) But second, and more importantly, as luck would have it, because there are only three methods of influence, persuasion, and coercion available to human beings. Only three reproductive strategies available to human beings, that correspond to those methods of influence, persuasion, and coercion. And so it just turns out that we can illustrate almost all human behavior using those three relationships.

And third,
3) because the triangle helps us visualize the equilibrium between these forces.

Does that mean I won’t show you supply demand curves, or even more complex forms of causal relationships? No. I will show you those tools. But only in the context of trying to understand how complexity increases and how we can understand complexity. We won’t do any math. I will just use the basic properties of math (measurement) to explain certain topics to you.

So we are going to use definitions, series, and triangles as means of esuring against our tendency to oversimplify (generarlize and eliminate information), deduce from (expand our error) and draw conclusions (amplify our errors). Which is fine if we are searching for ideas, but terrible if we are trying to test our ideas.

Now, onto those three methods:

The Methods of Cooperation and Coercion:

Cooperative Triangle
a) protect vs prey or punish,
b) cooperate vs steal or free ride
a) create opportunity vs deny opportunity

Persuasive (Coercive) Triangle
a) violence: order(safety) / punishment
b) remuneration: exchange / payment
c) gossip: advocating / ridiculing

Decisive (Critical) Triangle
a) deception, false, true Enough, True?
b) voluntary or involuntary
c) gain or loss

The Problems of scale:

Center Spectrum: Man as his own measure
a) below human scale – analogies to perception – expanding
b) within human scale – within our perception – relatively static
c) above human scale – analogies to perception – expanding

Center Spectrum: Man as the Measure – his limits
a) The universe (limits of possibility)
b) Man (limits of man’s actions)
c) Imagination ( limits of imagination)

The Spectrum of Information:

Center Spectrum:
a) decidable (negative)(necessity
b) informative (neutral)(existential)
c) choice (positive)(preference)

Center Spectrum Series:
a) Science (external limits) (scientific/engeering/craftsmanly)
b) Law (reciprocal limits) (judicial/military/commercial)
c) Aesthetics (preferential limits) (priesthood)

Deflationary Center Spectrum:
a) Historical (Empirical, Descriptive, Existential)
b) Testimonial (Rational, Reciprocal, Cooperative)
c) Artistic (Literary/Artistic/Aesthetic, Preferable)

Methodological Center Spectrum:
a) Empirical (physical, scientific, engineered, descriptive, existential, correspondent )
b) Rational ( Legal, justificationary, non-contradictory)
c) Literary ( Imagined, narrated)

Truth Triangle
a) Measurement (physical) (possible) (measure reality)
b) Market (cooperative) (reciprocal) (measure other’s preference)
c) Preferential (‘increases in capital’) (measure personal preference. or what we call ‘value’)

False Triangle (Fictionalisms)
a) appeal to (incalculable) good ( moral fallacy ) (conflate calculable preference with incalculable good)
b) appeal to (fictional) order (ideal fallacy) naturalism(naturalistic fallacy)
c) appeal to authority (divine fallacy)
Fictionalisms are achieved by i) conflation, and ii) shifting (claiming coercive information that does not exist).

Organizing Triangle:
a) CONFLATION AND MONOPOLY (STAGNATION) (old) (theocracy, bureaucracy, undecidability)
b) DEFLATION AND COMPETITION (INNOVATION) (growing) (market decidability)
c) COMMAND (TRANSFORMATION) (to deflationary)(behind) (fascism/generalship/authoritarian decidability)

Deflationary Triangle:
a) Nietzche: aesthetic restoration (Values)
b) Doolittle(and others): legal restoration
c) Many Scientists : scientific restoration

Utility (market)




Well, what I hoped to accomplish is to define philosophy, define decidability, show the operations by which we communicate, and test our communications. And hopefully introduce you to definitions, sequences, and equilibria as means of testing communications (arguments) for their means of precision.

The Reformation of Psychology(Individual), Ethics(Others), Sociology(Groups) – And Applications To Moral and Ethical Questions ( Propertarian Ethics )

Course 201 – Introduction To the Outline

The Evolution of Choice
life, sentience, awareness, consciousness, reason, calculation, science (truth).

The Evolution of Cooperation
Interpersonal cooperation, interpersonal competition, interpersonal conflict.
Ingroup Cooperation, Ingroup Competition, Ingroup War.
Outgroup Coopeartion, Outgroup Competition, Outgroup War.

The Evolution of the Family
Family, Clan, Tribe, State, Nation, Corporation, Empire

The Evolution of Rules (Limits)
Habits, manners/ethics/morals, Norms, Laws, Traditions, Myths and Religions

The Evolution of Property

The Evolution of Money, Prices, Accounting, Economics, Economics in Toto

The Evolution of Argument (negotiation).

Course 210 – Psychology : Acquisition

  1. Acquisitionism
  2. The Mind (How It Works, Systems, Limits, Differences)
  3. Personality and Intelligence
  4. Genetics, In Utero, Development of the Mind
    • Male Vs Female / Solipsism(psychosis) Vs Autism
    • Rate and Depth of Sexual Maturity
    • Sexual Dimorphism (Gender Distribution)
    • Clannishness Vs Openness
  5. Reproductive and Class Division of Perception
    1. Male and Female
    2. Female, Young Male, Adult Male
    3. Moral Blindness


(draft) (worth repeating)

(core)(central concept)(necessary)(innovation)

P1) ASSETS: self/body, energy, relations, investment/opportunity
P2) ABILITY: intellect/intellectual effort, emotional reserves/ability, physical ability / effort,
P3) DESIRABILITY: other-acceptance(non-rejection), other-information, other-insurance),

Note that these three are (a) evidentiary in the individual’s experience of his or her life, (b) habitual in the family unit and the information and training of the family unit – and informationally inherited. (c) evident in the assets of the family unit, (c) genetically inheritable.

But what assets do we humans seek to preserve, consume, acquire, and maintain? A rich portfolio that varies from our life itself, time, food, shelter, kin, mates, allies (people to cooperate with), private property (stuff), private commons, public commons, territory, information, opportunity, normative institutions, cultural institutions, formal institutions. The reasons being that as we increase each of these our discount on intellectual, emotional, and physical effort increases.

Through cooperation in a division of temporal perception, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, we use the one commodity that is most precious: time, to make everything we desire cheaper – so profoundly so that we actually cannot fathom its scale. By the simple combination of sovereignty and reciprocity; norm, tradition, literature and myth; property, contract and law; money, prices and credit; family(marriage), organization(corporation), voluntary(civic), local, regional, and national government; we convert the little time of our human lives into the production of complex goods any one, even the most simple, the production of which would consume lifetime of an individual.

E1) Pleasure(reward) vs Pain(cost) (pre cognitive)
E2) Excitement(projected gain/loss) vs Rest (conserve) (cognitive but pre-social)
E3) Aggression(dominance) vs Fear(submission) (cognitive and social)

All emotions describe anticipated changes in state of (P1)Assets. That is all that they describe. Nothing more. They may evolve through complex combinations of assets and emotional reactions, so that we experience a ‘chord’ or ‘symphony’ of emotions. And we might (artists do) attempt to compose such ‘symphonies’ for us to experience. But just as all music is constructed from a limited number of properties, and complexity emerges from its subtle combinations, emotions are constructed from only a small number of properties, and complexity in our experience emerges from dense combinations of those subtle combinations.

Note that by combining these three emotions with the various forms of ASSETS, and the various values of those assets, we can produce the entire spectrum of human emotions in a rich orchestra no matter which emotional framework we wish to describe.

I1) The feminine near term need for inventory and consumption given the fragility and duration of the maturity of offspring. (socialistic/individualistic/offspring)
I2) The immature male need for opportunity to accumulate assets in order to attract and maintain females. (libertarian/individualistic/assets)
I3) The mature male need to preserve costly personal, familial, group, tribal investments (conservative/familial/tribal/preservation)

Note that these differences in reproductive strategy are expressed in our advocacy for the distribution of the proceeds of population density, cooperation within that population density: female egalitarian, male youth individualist, and adult male meritocratic. Each bias reflects the reproductive strategy of the the genders. Each member does in fact contribute to the creation of returns withing a polity (group) as long as he or she doe not predatorially, parasitically, free-ride upon the group’s efforts. Individuals can specialize or develop portfolios of contributions to a polity. And most of us develop portfolios that produce the maximum returns for us given our abilities.

Those portfolios consist in:
The provision of caretaking. The adherence to and policing of norms, traditions, rituals, the recitation of myths. Participation in cooperation of defense, goods, services, and information. Virtuous contribution to the commons through donation and redistribution. Meritorious contribution to the commons through the production of excellence. Status contribution to the commons through the contribution to or production of institutions and monuments. Heroic contribution to the commons by self sacrifice or risk. ( But let us remember that people can also engage in false advertising in order to obtain opportunity and free riding without performance or investment. )

Note that nothing else is necessary to describe all ethical, moral, and social behavior.

1) The terms used above are analogies that we can reduce to frames of current experience. How our brains record, anticipate gains and losses of the various forms of assets they find useful is still something we must discover. However, in that discipline we call psychology: the operations and variables that constitute the human experience, I have significant doubts whether further refinement of this set of ‘names’ will vary further any more so than have number and note, weight, volume, and velocity. And that all further refinement to psychology will consist largely of subtle expressions constructed upon these terms.

Whenever we change the paradigm of any model that serves our ability to describe phenomenon, it is because we have developed a technology by which the scale of our perceptions and scale of our actions, require redefinition of the model to accommodate the new increases in scope.

2) Human conscious experience is conflationary: the combination of perception, memory, and recursive interactions of perception and memory, producing a continuous ‘overload'(conflation) that our short term memories are insufficient to preserve as a state, and where that preserved state would be necessary for introspection. Were we able to capture (freeze) frames of that complex experience in our short term memories we might be able to trace the causal routes through the layers of our brain with a great deal of practice. And in some cases we are able to do that. But because our experience is ‘assembled’ and ‘reassembled’ each time, and because we actually modify it with each reflection upon it, the sheer quantity of fragmentary information would be ‘unfollowable’ except as a sequence of concepts – a sequence that through introspection we can sometimes deduce.

Given youthful poverty, ignorance, energy, and lack of accumulated cellular damage, and mature wealth, and knowledge accumulated at the cost of accumulated cellular damage, the generations engaged (until the 20th century usurpation by government and redistribution from the mature and aged to underclass reproduction) in a voluntary exchange between the generations.

The most obvious is the transmission of care and property between generations of families, but the least obvious is the borrowing and lending of money and interest OUTSIDE of families, and even outside of those who are known to us by use of the legal, finance, and banking system – in one of the most egalitarian but meritocratic means of intergenerational cooperation while preserving accumulated information by which the old could control the risks of the young. Again which was destroyed by government interference in the 20th century through the use of fiat credit and the subsequent empowerment of the financial sector.

Note that nothing else is required to explain various cultural behaviors other than reproductive strategies, moral intuitions for ‘proper/fair’ property and proceed distribution in relation to reproductive strategies. Family strategies and the correspondence of family strategies with the increasing accumulation of various properties, with individual property ownership instead of family currently eliminating the last vestiges of the family as an asset-transfer unit (made possible by the destruction of the family by the government transfer of assets from productive to unproductive individuals).

It’s rather obvious that the bronze and iron ages radiated out from the fertile crescent whose seasonal flooding provided reliable irrigation that could be controlled by a warrior elite, the proceeds of production extracted, consumption increased by the elites, and investments in commons produced by their followers.

It is somewhat obvious that the trade routes from northern Italy overland to the north sea, wherein the Venetians provided a navy for the wealthier but more despotic Byzantines and their Conquerors the Muslims, created the foundation for first the failed Carolingian civilization, and the ‘truncated’ Hanseatic civilization. And that today’s european heartland still reflects Carolingian Lotharingia.

It is less obvious that in european civilization, from Spain to the Urals, the same pattern of radiation outward is visible from the north sea down to the Hajnal line, within which northern europeans practiced bipartite manorialism the nuclear, and absolute nuclear family, as well as the common law of sovereign men, as well as rule of law – governance without rule by market means. And then through the catholic countries where they did not, to the eastern european countries where the middle class evolution was late – and truncated by the Russians, to the Russian that civilization that was too young, to experience either the scientific enlightenment, or the reformation to which they were more suitable, and busy conquering the remains of the Mongol’s Golden Horde empire from Belarus to the pacific and into what is today Alaska.

Below the protestant, catholic, and orthodox lines of civilization we see a polar opposite strategy: not one of incremental domestication for profit in pursuit of limiting or eliminating rule: Sovereignty, but one of preservation of ignorance, preservation of underclasses, preservation of family and tribal orders, preservation of tribal conflict, and thereby an ever INCREASING demand for authoritative rule – a rule that is profitable for a large number of religious ‘judges’ and advisors, and an authoritarian militaristic state apparatus. Were it not for the presence of cheaply extracted oil, this part of the world would be somewhere developmentally below south america given it’s indigenous underclass, between rural India and its indigenous underclass, and high conflict subsaharan Africa, and its indigenous underclasses.

And far to the east we have Indian civilization who, thanks to Hinduism has succeed at least in creating a relatively gentle people, and who has (unwantingly) imported anglo logic, and russian economics and politics and law. Chinese civilization that has imported russian philosophy, economics, and politics, and is now importing anglo empiricism and technology. But where indians are optimistically untruthful people, chinese are pessimistically untruthful people. And Russians are opportunistically untruthful people.

What the chinese and russians have had is a military capable of altering the course of the civilization when necessary. This is what the hindus do not have. Perhaps for the simple reason that the continent of india unlike the narrow strips of green that constitution the population centers of russia and china, is simply impossible to rule centrally without an external threat that gives rise for the need to form a military as did china to resist modernity, and russia to provide an alternative to modernity.

With this history in mind we can see something quite interestinsg
that the stock market and high risk and highly ‘evangelical’ movements exist in america, and that americans practice scientific law – and that maericans deny the existence of their classes. That the bond market and banking exist in England. That the british have traded Anglo empiricism for a conflation with French Rousseuian moralism and practice moral law. And that the british complain about their classes. That engineering and perhaps the most psychologically precise language and high capital investment and an explicity hierarchy exist in germany along with requisite ‘duty’ more so than empathic ‘morality’. That eastern europe has been truncated but now forms a relatively moral labor force. That Russia provides the military and resources on a scale and practicality that the idealistic utopianism of the american military can never hope to achieve despite it’s technological and operational excellence – which is exactly its primary weakness. No Russian would produce a US military. It’s fragile. It’s just big. What makes american military dangerous is TRUST. Americans fight and maintain formation. and take initiative to win.

So what we see is high risk Americans, tepid risk Britons, low risk Germans, risk averse eastern europeans, and highly risk intolerant if not outright paranoid Russians.

That this civilization from Australia to america to Europe, to Russian Asia constitutes a series of specializations in the inter-temporal demands of the civilization is not so obvious. That’s unfortunate, because no other civilization can manage it.

NOTE: Note that nothing else is needed to explain the differences between these societies other than the atomicity of property due to the advancement of the commercial sector that we call the middle class.

Just as voluntary exchange free of fraud is the only test of whether a good, service, or information has been a use of resources, a personal consumption, or waste of resources, voluntary cooperation free of deceit is the only means of testing reciprocity(sovereignty) whether the resource of cooperation (time, energy, opportunity, resources) has been productive, parasitically consumed, or wasted.

When we engage in cooperative exchanges across our various abilities, needs, and biases we discover which goods, services, and information is desired by the market, and we therefore adjust our relations, efforts, and or thoughts, to find a balance between what we desire to do, what is available to do, and what others want us to do.

In this way, through sovereignty, reciprocity, and markets in all walks of life we ‘calculate’ methods of achieving one another’s goals without having the intention of achieving one another’s goals.

We the rely on rebellion, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disagreement, debate, discourse, agreement, congratulations, advocacy, and cooperative action depending upon we agree with or disagree with one ‘ambition’ in the portfolio of ambitions that we are aware of and capable of understanding at any time.

And while only those with errors (mental illnesses – wether physical, emotional, or intellectual) engage in those topics of investigation that are increasingly difficult to reduce to direct experience:, economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, logic, mathematics – because they possess neither a portfolio of investments nor knowledge to trade them;
unfortunately everyone can reduce questions of reciprocity, ethics, morality, politics, culture, and civilization to direct experience because from micro investors to major investors each of us has defacto constructed a portfolio of cooperation. Unfortunately, just as the economics of the family, the business, the nation, and the world, operate by very different and completely counterintuitive, and often opposite rules, such that excellence in one niche is not commutable to another, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and humans of all levels of sophistication overestimate their knowledge.

One of the reasons for teaching and speaking, and legislating in Propertarianism’s Natural Law, is that the logic of law and cooperation is no longer subjectively undecidable, but objectively decidable regardless of norm, tradition, culture, or legislation. And as such we educate in morality by a means as certain as mathematics: because just as mathematics must be constructible by means of operations retaining consistent relations, consent, cooperation, contract and law must be constructible by means of operations consisting of constant relations we call ‘reciprocity’ : the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of our assets and limited to productive externalities to the assets of others.

And more importantly, since the invention of the pulpit in prior eras, and the print in subsequent eras, and mass media in our just-ending era, has led to the incremental industrialization of error, suggestion, and deceit, and that we developed reason as a counter to eastern supernaturalism in the ancient world, were defeated by eastern supernaturalism, and then rescued ourselves by empiricism in early modern world, nearly completed the second scientific revolution in Germany before it was truncated by the world wars, and that we have nearly been defeated by eastern pseudoscientific mysticism of the cosmopolitans in the twentieth century world, and given that the thinkers of the last century (darwin, nietzsche, spencer, poincare, brouwer, bridgman, mises, popper, hayek) failed to produce the *advancement* in empiricism that would allow us to refute the pseudoscitsts that attempted the third wave of supernaturalism – this time by even more innovative means (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, the Frankfurt School).

As far as I know all human emotion and behavior can be explained by these three ASSETS, these three EMOTIONS, and the MEMORY of our life experience to date; along with the division of reproductive labor, the division of intertemporal labor, the division of productive labor, the division of class labor in producing commons, and the division of civilizational labor in producing commons at the largest scales.

As far as I know differences in personalities allow us to specialize in niches and as long as we do not err in our assessments of our assets, all personality types both (a) gravitate to empirically available portfolios and the uses of those portfolios, and (b) react rationally and emotionally rationally to the current and future value of those portfolios. (c) and assistance in improving those portfolios is the best that we can do for one another – and what makes us love one another – investing in one another.

As far as I know some individuals are defective primarily in their limited reserves of frustration in relation to their other abilities. As far as I know the classes consist of individuals with increasing inheritances of (P1)Assets, (P2)Abilities, and (P3)Desirability. And as far as I know the classes sort according to familial, associative, productive, reproductive, and political utility to one another.

As far as I know the west and the far east have been most successful because a combination of climate (cold), production techniques (small family farms), aristocracy imposed manorialism (access to land and therefore reproduction), and an aristocracy that aggressively exterminated those troublemakers. Meanwhile the process of reproductive selection among those that remained favored lower impulsivity, lower and slower maturity, and more feminine traits in women, which resulted in domestication of then population through pedomorphic evolution much more so than all other forms of evolutionary influence combined.

We can vary our assets. We can get fit, we can primp and preen, we can learn manners and small talk, We can learn skills. We can develop relationships, produce and save. But we can only do so to the limits of our genetically inherited abilities.

Therefore, the primary means of self improvement given the limits of our genetic assets, is through the REMOVAL OF ERROR: the problems of the self: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking. The problem is, that we often cannot tolerate a true accounting of our assets, or opportunity for assets, because the realization that we have empty pockets so to speak, and are totally dependent upon the favor of others, when we are undesirable by others, because we are either a cost or lacking value to others, would remove from us the will to live. It is for this reason alone that Buddhism Succeeded among the poor, and Stoicism Succeeded among the working and middle classes, and science, economics, law, and philosophy, among the upper middle and upper classes: these methods of thought correspond to the means of eliminating fear of falling behind our peers in the constant race with the red queen in all walks of social life.

If we do not need to cooperate, how complex a set of personalities do we need? we need to be more mobile to find food, we need to be smarter to hunt food, we need to be smarter to outwit competitors, we need to be much smarter to cooperate to outwit competitors – whether within the group or without it.

We must seek to find niches to exploit within group and without group, and within nature by individual means, and within nature by cooperative means. We seek to create allies in cooperation, to join allies in cooperation, and to outwit allies by defection, and to outwit enemies by circumvention, cooperation, or defeat.

But most of our cooperation occurs within group. Most of our evolution occurred because of in-group problems of negotiation.

The band/family was knowable. The family/tribe somewhat knowable. The village/family knowable. The city not knowable, but because of family religion and law and barter, somewhat predictable. The big city is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law and pricing. The metropolis is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law, pricing, credit, and mass media – like religion, attempting to force us into peerage. And modernity is was beginning to be terrifyingly unknowable until jobs, law, pricing, credit, and the new distributed media that allowed us to find peers around the world easily.

I suspect the future will be an expansion of interpersonal reputation, legal reputation, credit reputation, and ‘social media’ reputation of some sort – so that we may identify informational peers amidst the multitude of different grains of human sand. And I would expect to see an increase in specialization of identities – if only for signaling purposes – and personalities – as means of adapting – just as we have seen an increase in the specialization of knowledge and labor.

Personalities are a means of dividing the problem of the intertemporal and reproductive division of perception knowledge, negotiation advocacy, and labor into that thing we call reciprocity and the benefits of cooperating in increasing scales while taking advantage of both increasingly small niches for those with lesser abilities, maintaining niches, and generating new niches, that destroy the old.

(undone )


Ergo, the government has destroyed the checks and balances of a heterogeneous polity.


In every era of history we have used the most sophisticated technology we know of as an analogical model to both describe the introspectively unavailable functions of the human mind, and to justify whatever authoritarian model we wish to impose upon one another. Freud and Jungs attempt to escape Darwin and Nietzsche by fabricating pseudosciences with which they could criticize what they held in disdain made use of the uniformity-industrialism and sexually-repressive-victorian (due to syphilis) models of the day.

Wile in the last century thanks to Maxwell, we spoke physical phenomenon as changes in energy. In the current era, thanks to physicists we speak of physical phenomenon as changes in the state of information. In the past eras we spoke of passions and virtues, then of emotions and wants. and thanks to Hayek we now speak of social science, and now thanks to Turing, we speak of psychology as changes in state of information. In doing so we cast off the imprecision and bias of prior eras, and the attempts at deception of prior political and cultural movements.

The current model of personality that psychologists operate by retains both the authoritarianism of the industrialist and socialist era, with only tepid attempts at reform in response to the findings of the cognitive sciences, and the conversion of pseudoscientific psychology to empirical psychology. The current Five Factor (or six or seven) model in its various forms does in fact correspond somewhat to services provided by brain structures.

FF1) CURIOSITY (INTELLECT-NOVEL) / REPEATABILITY (MEMORY-KNOWN) (psychology): The ability available to find rewards in success through experimentation or the inability to tolerate frustration in failure and the discovery of success in repetition

FF2) EXTRAVERSION / INTROVERSION (psychology): Method by which one processes information: dependence upon self reflection, or dependence upon empathy and communication from others. The limits to frustration we obtain with seeking information from others depending upon our desirability for informational cooperation with others.

FF3) AGREEABLENESS / DISAGREEABLENESS (Psychology): “the willingness to bear small costs of investment in order to identify present and longer term opportunities for gains or consumption and prevent current and future costs or losses.” (byproduct of conscientious ness/extroversion?)




Course 220 – Ethics and morality : Cooperation  (InGroup)

  1. Cooperation and its returns
  2. Signaling in all its forms
  3. Negotiation not Truth
  4. Ethics and Morality
    • Personal and preferential, (purely personal)
    • Normative and justifiable, (normative adherence)
    • Objective and Decidable (conflict resolution)
  5. Family, Morality, and Property
  6. Trust and Groupishness
  7. Measurement – How do we Measure Human Capital?

Course 220 – Sociology (InGroup)

  1. Norms as portfolios of … (answer) (discounts)
  2. Signaling as The Human Accounting System
    • All About Signaling
    • All about virtue signaling and signal spirals.
  3. Class Coercion and Specialization
  4. Class Orders, Horizontal and Vertical

Course 330 – Competition (OutGroup Competition)

  1. Group Adaptation and Expression
  2. Polity Formation and Incentives (how to form polities under different conditions)
  3. Measurement – how do we measure social capital?

Junior – Reformation of Law, Politics, and Institutions – (Market Government)

COURSE 310 – The Economics of Time  (via negativa)

  1. Time Saved – We are not wealthier than cave men
  2. Opportunity Economy (proximity, density, cities)
  3. Increases everything – good and bad
  4. Eliminating violence, theft fraud to reduce transaction and oppy costs
  5. Eliminating errors, bias, deceit to identify opportunities
  6. Eliminating conspiracy in all its forms (ingroup predatory orders)
  7. Eliminating war in all its forms (outgroup predatory orders)
  8. Incremental Suppression – the spectrum of institutions (norm, law, govt, military)
  9. The Agility of the Common Law
  10. The Transaction Cost of Government (evolution of)
  11. The competition for polities  and the differnces in opportunity and transaction costs.

Economic Organization

  1. Voluntary Vs Involuntary Orders
    • Capitalism, Mixed, Socialism
  2. The Individual (Productive) Division of Knowledge and Labor
  3. The Reproductive Division of Knowledge and Labor
  4. Intertemporal Division of Perception, Cognition…
  5. The Intergenerational Division of Knowledge and Labor
  6. The Class Division of Knowledge and Labor
  7. The Circumpolar Division of Knowledge and Labor

COURSE 330 – Politics (Organizational Models)

Perfect Government – Markets in Everything

  1. Sovereignty as Strategy
  2. Markets In Everything: Rule of Law
  3. Market for Association and disassociation
  4. Market for Reproduction (Marriage)
  5. Market for Production and Consumption
  6. Market for Production of Commons
    • The many problems of Democracy
  7. Market for the resolution of conflict.
  8. Market for Rule

Political Models


COURSE 350 – Group Evolutionary Strategy

  1. Group Evolutionary Strategy and Competition
  2. Conditions, Distributions, Strategy, Culture, and Genes
  3. Humanity, Race, Higher Tribalism, War, Competition and Cooperation
  4. The Final Question of Decidability: Dysgenic, Pragmatic, Eugenic?
  5. Measurement – how do we measure (and judge) Strategies?

Group Competitive Models

We will each choose three groups from any times in history and explain their strategies.

The Reformation of War and Competition – (Competition and Conflict)

Course 401 – The Forms of Warfare and Time Frames

  1. Information
  2. Religion (Conversion)
  3. Overbreeding
  4. Immigration
  5. Trade and Financial (Economic)
  6. War and Conquest
  7. Genocide

Course 402 – The Conduct of Revolution and Warfare

  1. Generations of Warfare – And our Current Generation
  2. Command, Communications, and Control
  3. Via-Negativa, OODA Loops, Trust, and Technology
  4. Contemporary Strategy and Tactics
  5. Setting Demands (conditions of winning)
  6. Recruitment and Training

Course 403 – War Games – (Seminar)

Putting Propertarianism Into Practice

Graduate Courses – Law

Graduate –  Seminar in Writing Arguments For and Against The suite of moral questions.

Course 500 – ( … )

  1. Theories of good
  2. Crime
    • Libel and slander
    • Bribery
    • Blackmail
    • ‘scalping’
    • Interest / usury
    • financial/instruments”
  3. Restitution (crime/negligence)
  4. Punishment (criminal)
    • Incarceration
    • Punishing (beating)
    • Hanging
  5. Conflict
    1. Immigration
    2. Conversion
    3. Religions
    4. War
    5. Colonialism
    6. Conquest
  6. The Informational Commons
    • The media
    • Speech
  7. The Market Commons
    • Weights measures
    • Product safety
    • Intellectual property
    • Monopoly
    • Workdays
    • Holidays
  8. Spatial commons
    • Monuments
    • Pollution
    • Resources
    • The land air and seas
    • Space (extra terrestrial)
  9. Others
    • Drones
    • Artificial intelligences
    • Animals
    • Association and exclusion
    • Racism
    • Aliens
  10. Life
    • Self defense
    • Lifeboat
    • Suicide
    • Abortion
    • Exposure
    • Euthanasia
    • Spanking
    • Generations
    • Reproduction
    • Dysgenia and eugenia
  11. Insurance
    • Charity
  12. Crisis
    • Disaster
    • Disease
    • Poverty
    • Famine
    • Shelter: winter and summer
  13. Rule vs govern
    • Symbolic contract/legislation prohibited

Graduate – Seminar in Writing Arguments Against Political Ideologies

Course 500 –

We construct arguments (for and) against

Graduate – The Perfect Constitution of Natural Law

Course 50x – The Constitution of Natural Law

Graduate – Seminar in Writing Constitutions Using Natural Law

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate Courses – Rule

Graduate – Revolution, Conquest, and Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism)

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate –  Seminar in Judging (Judge of Natural Law)

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate – Governance ( Local and Regional Leadership )

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate – Administration Insurer of Last Resort

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate – Institutions (of cooperation), Courts, Banking, Trade, Service, Militia

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate – Infrastructure (Built Capital)

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate – Myth and Tradition, Religion, Education,

Course 50x – ( … )

Graduate – Aesthetics, Arts, and Literature

Course 50x – ( … )

Post Graduate Courses – EDUCATION – History, Literature, and Parable

Course 60x – Seminars – Readings in Science, History, and Literature

Our goal in these seminars is to identify examples in the historical literature that can be used to illustrate what we have learned, and to learn to criticize what we have abandoned.  Literature is much easier than reason, and much much easier than logic and  measurement. And therefore the ‘common language’ of the unskilled in the arts of measurement.

Courses in Revolution and War

001 – Revolutionary Strategy, Organization, and Logistics

(base document: https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/04/05/the-conduct-of-revolution-a-market-for-action/ )

Men with the Agency to demand Sovereignty for themselves, and liberty, freedom and subsidy for their kin, do not need a leader to direct them – that would be illogical.  They need an achievable goal, organization, communication, strategy, tactics, and communication.  And they need to rally a few handfuls of men of like minds to assist them.

It is only logical that a group of men with agency, in pursue of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, and the transcendence that results, would conduct a revolution by market rather than means of central leadership.

When throwing a revolution against a fragile but powerful state, one needs only to exploit the fragility of the fragile state, and to let fragility do the work for the revolutionaries.

No civilization has been more fragile, and no time ever more full of opportunity than the anglo-american empire in the current era.

How do we create a Market for Revolutionary Action?  It’s easy.  How do markets work?  Supply something of value to the leaders and actors who desire it.

(More to come)

Reading List

The Great Books Of The Aristocracy:
The Evolution of the Nature Law of Sovereigns



The Western Order

The ruling class under the monarchies never produced a canon of its own: a collection of works whose content is politically scientific and rationally written. The rulers simply did their job with tradition, pragmatism and familial wisdom. So a rich, fully articulated analysis of the western social and political system has been unavailable to us, other than Plato’s – and he was tragically wrong.

There have been a number of ‘Great Books’ lists, in an effort to develop a western, or even world canon1 . These lists start by sharing a desire for freedom, and at some point for democracy, and finally, evolve to a desire for communism. They are not scientific, but merely moral appeals for power. As such they are sentimental and political propaganda and little more than efforts to seize political power or seize assets from the aristocracy by promoting redistribution, collectivism and democracy, using derivatives of Christian arguments.

This list is my attempt to cover the body of ‘scientific’ political thought: writing that is based upon the record of what humans actually do, rather than what we fantasize that they should do. I also try to be consistent in avoiding appeals to sentiments, and instead, limit selections to rational or scientific arguments. I’ve tried to select books that the inquiring reader can wade through, and avoided the most abstract texts wherever possible. (The distraction of Bohm Bahwerk for example.) And I have tried to provide selections from a breadth of fields which serves to prevent the errors inherent in selective specialization. And because I believe that practical wisdom is the result of accumulated general knowledge and the further synthesis of common principles regardless of their field of origin.

Included are: Art, Mythology, History, The Behavior Of Man, Philosophy, Politics, Economics, Law, and War. These are, together, the technologies of cooperation and conflict resolution.

Our Digital Library Is Huge.

Visit Our Library Here …
We capture these works in digital form, as often as possible. If you cannot obtain them from a bookstore or a library you can find them in our digital library. (Which is enormous)

Genus Homo and the Species and Races of Man

The Species of Great Apes:  Contrary to Abrahamic, Marxist, Postmodernist, Pseudoscience, of the Universalist Herd, here is the Genus Homo, and the species and races (subspecies) of man.

Jayman’s Human Biodiversity Reading List

Jayman and HBD Chick’s Recommended Reading list is also here.  We really ought to just make a book out of readings from it.

The History of Philosophy Timeline

The History of Philosophy Timeline with links for who relates to whom.



The Short List: The Current State of Knowledge

Our Minds

Jeff Hawkins: On Intelligence  (The Brain)
Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (The Mind)
Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind (The Moral Intuition)
Steven Pinker: How the Mind Works
Ramachandran: The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human
Simon Baron-Cohen : The Essential Difference: Male And Female Brains And The Truth About Autism
Steven Pinker: The Language Instinct: How The Mind Creates Language


Nicholas Wade: Before The Dawn: Recovering the Last History of Our Ancestors
David Reich: Who We Are and How We Got Here
Matt Ridley: The Red Queen
Dale Petersen: Demonic Males
William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization
Nicholas Wade: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History
Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth
Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution  
Francis Fukuyama: Trust (The Political Objective)
Francis Fukuyama: The Origins Of Political Order
Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray: Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide [Perfect Paperback]
Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Hartshorna, Kaznatcheeva, and Shultz: The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

The West (Sovereignty)

Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
David W. Anthony: The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
Joseph Campbell : The Hero’s Journey
Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation 
Eric H. Cline: 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed 

The Militia – the West Is Defined by The Militia of Sovereign Men

John Keegan: A History Of Warfare 
Victor Davis Hanson: The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece
Victor Davis Hanson: The Other Greeks – The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization.
Victor Davis Hanson: The Western Way of War – Infantry Battle in Classical Greece
Victor Davis Hanson: Why the West Has Won : Carnage and Culture from Salamis to Vietnam

The Destruction of The West – and Its Self Resurrection

Catherine Nixey : The Darkening Age: The Christian(Jewish) Destruction of the Classical World 
Ramsay MacMullen: Paganism and Christianity 100-425 C.E
Ramsay MacMullen: Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth To Eighth Centuries
Bryan Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization
James C. Russell: The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity
Emmet Scott: Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited. 
Raymond Ibrahim: Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West 

Neoteny and Genetic Pacification (Jayman)

Peter Frost (2008). Sexual selection and human geographic variation,
Frost, Peter (2010). The Roman State and genetic pacification,
Frost, Peter and Harpending, Henry (2015). Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification,
Harpending, Henry (2012). Genetics and the Historical Decline of Violence?
Peter Frost (2013). Evo and Proud: Making Europeans kinder, gentler 
Peter Frost (2013). Evo and Proud: Where do those tensions come from? 
Also: Ron Unz (2013). How Social Darwinism Made Modern China | The American Conservative
Also: Cochran, Gregory; Hardy, Jason; & Harpending, Henry (2006). Natural History of Ashkenazi IntelligenceJournal of Biosocial Science 38, 1-35
Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology (Family)
Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe (French) (Families)

HBD Chick’s Work on Family and Clannishness (Continuing Emmanuel Todd etc)

start here
clannishness defined
big summary post on the hajnal line
the middle ages
year-end summary, 2011
outbreeding, self-control and lethal violence
2012 top ten
historic european homicide rates … and the hajnal line
medieval manorialism’s selection pressures

In addition to Jayman’s summaries of her work:

An HBD Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization
How Inbred are Europeans?


First, be sure to see these blog posts by Greg Cochran on West Hunter (2012):

Get Smart
More thoughts on genetic load
The genetics of stupidity
The Golden Age
Keller, Matthew C., & Miller, Geoffery (2006). Resolving the paradox of common, harmful, heritable mental disorders: Which evolutionary genetic models work best? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 285-452.

The Rights of Anglo Saxons (Contractualism)

Edwin Vieira Jr.: The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the Several States” (multimedia only – Trying to find pdf.)
Fritz Kern: Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages
John Blair: Building Anglo Saxon England
Alan MacFarlane : Origins of English Individualism
Daniel Hannan: Inventing Freedom 
David Hackett Fischer: Albion‘s Seed: Four British Folkways in America
David Hackett Fischer, (1989). Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America.
Colin Woodard (2011). American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.
Gregory Clark: A Farewell to Alms 

The Natural Common Law (Contractual Constitutionalism)

Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.
Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.
Hayek’s:  The Constitution of Liberty

20th Century Context

Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism
Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed 

The Present Conflict

On Racial and Ethnic Strife, the Pull of Genetic Similarity, and Challenges Presented by “diversity”:

Putnam, Robert D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century — The 2006 Johan Skytte PrizeScandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174

Also, on that note, see this ranking of the most peaceful U.S. states, in which, Maine (see HBD Chick here) consistently tops out at #1!

United States Peace Index « Vision of Humanity

Krupp, D.B., Debruine, L.M., Jones, B.C., and Lalumiere, M.L. (2012) Kin recognition: evidence that humans can perceive both positive and negative relatedness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25 (8). pp. 1472-1478.

Working Topics

(Just topics I am working on but not finished with)

Dallas Denery: The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment
Thomas Carson: Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice
Jennifer Mather Saul: Lying, Misleading, and What is Said
Clancy Martin: The Philosophy of Deception 1st Edition
Herbert Fingarette: Self-Deception
Brooke Harrington: Deception: From Ancient Empires to Internet Dating
Edward Bernays: Propaganda
Jason Stanley: How Propaganda Works Hardcover
Jeremy Elkins: Truth and Democracy
David Livingstone: Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others
Daniel Nanavati: A Brief History Of Lies

Michael Hoffman: Judaism Discovered from Its Own Texts: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit
Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals
Karl Marx: Communist Manifesto
Benjamin Ginsberg: The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State
Kevin MacDonald: The People that Shall Dwell Alone 
Kevin MacDonald: The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
Kevin MacDonald: Separation and its Discontents

(The Secular Religiousness and Effeminacy of Germanics)
Ostwald Spengler: The Decline Of The West
Francis Parker Yockey: Imperium.
Julius Evola: Revolt Against the Modern World

(Illustrates Femininity of French Analysis)
( … )
Emmanuel Todd: Illusion Economique

(The Masculine Science But Feminine Optimism of Anglo Analysis)
Madison Grant: The Passing of the Great Race
Pat Buchanan: The Death of the West

( … )

Christina Hoff Sommers: The War Against Boys,
Christina Hoff Sommers: The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling
Warren Farrell PhD, John Gray PhD: The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling
Bob Lewis :The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality

(in progress)
“The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life”
“Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior” by Leonard Mlodinow,
“Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment” by Phil Zuckerman,
“The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths” by Michael Shermer,
“SuperSense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable” by Bruce M. Hood,
“The Brain and the Meaning of Life” by Paul Thagard.
“Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain” by David Eagleman


Authors Removed:
I am a little iffy on Pinker despite the fact that he fired the first salvo against pseudoscience in the social sciences. I can’t tell where his defense of market for his books begins and his academic honesty ends. Better angels is not true for the reasons he states. And that really troubles me.
Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature
Steven Pinker : The Blank Slate

I am a little iffy on Harris because I have figured out his biases and errors, and his book on lying is too weak to include versus the alternatives.
Sam Harris : Lying



Aristotle: Ethics, Politics
Machiavelli: The Prince, Discourses
Burke: Reflections On The Revolution In France
Hamilton: The Federalist Papers
Bastiat: The Law
Sorel: Reflections On Violence
Mosca: Ruling Class
Michels: Political Parties
Burnham: The Machiavellians
Hayek: The Road To Serfdom, The Constitution Of Liberty
Mancur Olson: The Logic Of Collective Action
Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An Introduction.

David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature, Essays Moral and Political, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Locke: Two Treatise on Government
Adam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, The Wealth of Nations
Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America
Weber: Economy And Society, Essays in Sociology
Pareto: Mind And Society
Hayek: Individualism And Economic Order
Veblen: The Theory of the Leisure Class
Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Durkhiem: Division Of Labor In Society
Hoppe: The Economics And Ethics Of Private Property, Democracy The God That Failed

Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Society
Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy.
Thomas Sowell: Knowledge and Decisions


Gregory Clark: A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World
Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Fukuyama: The Origins Of Political Order
Carroll Quigley: The Evolution Of Civilizations
Braudel: A History of Civilizations
Durant: Lessons Of History (Everything really)
Toynbee: A Study Of History

Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
Emmanuel Todd: The Invention Of Europe (French Only)
Emmanuel Todd: The Causes of Progress
McNeil: The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community
McNeil: Plagues and Peoples
Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
Pomeranz: The Great Divergence (Anything he has written.)

Acemoglu: Why Nations Fail
Gibbon: The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
Spengler: The Death Of the West
Yockey: The enemy Of Europe, The Enemy Of Our Enemies, Imperium
Burnham: Suicide Of The West
Buchannan: The Decline Of The West
Whittaker Chambers: Witness

Keegan: A History Of Warfare (Anything he has written.)
Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”, Carnage and Culture (Anything he has written)
Sir Lawrence Freedman: Strategy: A History

Karen Armstrong: The Great Transformation
James C. Russell: The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity

Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
Robert Nisbet: The Quest for Community
Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Niall Ferguson: (Everything he has written)
Murray: Human Accomplishment (Everything he has written)
Mokyr: The Gifts Of Athena, The Lever Of Riches (Anything he has written)

Strauss and Howe: Generations, The Fourth Turning

Christopher Hayes: Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy
Fareed Zakaria: The Post-American World: Release 2.0
Joseph S. Nye Jr.:The Future of Power [Kindle Edition]
Samuel P. Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order [Kindle Edition]
Joseph Tainter), Colin Renfrew:The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology)
Fred Guterl:The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own Extinction and How We Can Stop It

Banfield: The Unheavenly City, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society
Axelrod: The Evolution Of Cooperation

Mancur Olson: The Rise and Decline Of Nations
Edward O. Wilson: The Social Conquest of Earth [Kindle Edition]

Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty [Kindle Edition]
Peter L. Berger, Thomas Luckmann:The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge [Paperback]
Bryan Caplan: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies [Hardcover]
Samuel P. Huntington: Political Order in Changing Societies (The Henry L. Stimson Lectures Series) [Paperback]
Niall Ferguson: Civilization: The West and the Rest
Charles Murray: Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950
Tim Harford:Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure [Kindle Edition]


Cavalli-Svorza; The Great Human Diasporas
Cochran & Harpending: The 10,000 Year Explosion
Richard Dawkins:The Selfish Gene:30th Anniversary edition
Jared M. Diamond: The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal (P.S.) [Paperback]
Robert Axelrod: The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition
Matt Ridley: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature [Kindle Edition]
Christopher Ryan, Cacilda Jetha: Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Dale Peterson, Richard Wrangham: Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence
Steven Goldberg : Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance Paperback

Flynn: What Is Intelligence?
Sternberg/Kaufman : The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence
Earl Hunt: Human Intelligence
Jeff Hawkins: On Intelligence
Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide [Perfect Paperback]
Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen:IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)

The humorous essays of “Le Griffe Du Lion” (Prof Robert Gordon. Some subtle statistical errors, but in general useful. His smart fraction theory is being explored by others at the moment.)



Also see this much more comprehensive list of research supporting human biodiversity here:

Human BioDiversity Reading List: http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

Top of the list: Pinker, Steven (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking.

HarrisJudith Rich (1998). The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They DoFree Press. Revised and Updated edition, 2009.

Harris, Judith Rich (2006). No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality. W.W. Norton.

Frost, Peter (2011). Human nature or human natures? Futures43, 740–748.

Clark, Gregory (2014). The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility. Princeton University Press.


(From Jayman)

Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke: A video of a debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke – Edge: THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE (2005) . The video from the above site has been removed, but can be found here. The above text contains a transcript of the debate and each presenter’s slides.

Larry Cahill: This discussion/review of sex differences by Larry Cahill (2014): Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain

Indeed, see much of the rest of Cahill’s work on this.

Ingalhalikar, Madhura, et al. (2013). Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brainPNAS 2013

Cahill, Larry (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscienceNature Reviews Neuroscience | AOP, published online 10 May 2006.

Ruigrok, Amber N.V.; Salimi-Khorshidi, Gholamreza; Lai, Meng-Chuan; Baron-Cohen, Simon; Lombardo, Michael V.; Tait, Roger J.; and Suckling, John (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structureNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 39, 34-50.

Schmitt, David P. (2003). Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety: Tests From 52 Nations, 6 Continents, and 13 IslandsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85–104.

Schmitt, David P. et al. (2012). A Reexamination of Sex Differences in Sexuality: New Studies Reveal Old TruthsCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 135–139.

Schmitt, David P. (2013). When Is a Sex Difference Real? | Psychology Today

Browne, Kingsley R. (2013). Biological Sex Differences in the Workplace: Reports of the End of Men are Greatly Exaggerated (As Are Claims of Women’s Continued Inequality)Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming. Wayne State University Law School Research Paper No. 2013-04.

Borkenau, P., Hřebíčková, M., Kuppens, P., Realo, A. and Allik, J. (2013), Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four SamplesJournal of Personality, 81, 49–60.

Think Again: Working Women – By Kay Hymowitz – Foreign Policy

Sommers, Christina Hoff (2013). Lessons from a feminist paradise on Equal Pay Day – Society and Culture – AEI

Sommers, Christina Hoff (2013). What ‘Lean In’ Misunderstands About Gender Differences – The Atlantic

Lemos, Gina C.; Abad, Francisco J.; Almeida, Leandro S.; and Colom, Robert (2013). Sex differences on g and non-g intellectual performance reveal potential sources of STEM discrepanciesIntelligence 41(1), 11-18.

(2011) Sex differences in the Brain: Fact or Fiction?: A video lecture by Margaret M. McCarthy that goes into great depth about the evidence for human and non-human animal sex differences in the brain and behavior (see starting at 28:09 for humans).

And of course, Harald Eia’s Brainwash episode on gender.



This talk by Steve Hsu:

Also see these blog posts by Steve Hsu:

Information Processing: Horsepower matters; psychometrics works (2009)
Information Processing: Do advanced education and a challenging career make you smarter? (2009)

Information Processing: Life impacts of personality and intelligence (2014)

More on the predictive validity of IQ, see this essay:

Murray, Charles (1997). IQ and economic successThe Public Interest, Summer 1997, 21-35

On the central importance of g to many aspects of life:

Gottfredson, Linda S. (1997). “Why g matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life.” Intelligence 24



See these key papers on behavioral genetics:

Bouchard, Thomas. J. and McGue, Matt (2003), Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differencesJ. Neurobiol., 54: 4–45.

Bouchard, Thomas J. (2004),  Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits A surveyCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4): 148-151

Bouchard, Thomas J. (2008). Genes and Human Psychological Traits. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich (Eds.), The Innate Mind, Volume 3: Foundations and the Future (69-89). Oxford University Press.

See this key defense against popular criticisms of behavioral genetics and a review of the evidence underlying the solidity of its methods:

Barnes, J.C.; Wright, John Paul; Boutwell, Brian B.; Schwartz, Joseph A.; Connoly, Eric J.; Nedelec, Joseph L.; and Beaver, Kevin M. (2014), Demonstrating the Validity of Twin Research in CriminologyCriminology.

Steger, Michael F.; Hicks, Brian M.; Kashdan, Todd B.; Krueger, Robert F.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas J. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on the positive traits of the values in action classification, and biometric covariance with normal personalityJournal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 524-539.

On the impact of genetics on IQ:

Plomin, Robert and Deary, Ian J. (2014) Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findingsMolecular Psychiatry advance online publication 16 September 2014

(2013) The Genetics of Intelligence « Meng Hu’s Blog

On the genetic contributions to economic success, including the role of IQ, and the lack of effects of the family environment on such (i.e., parents):

Essays on genetic variation and economic behavior – Cesarini, D. A. (2010). Essays on genetic variation and economic behavior. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from DSpace@MIT. (http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/57897).

Hyytinen, Ari; Ilmakunnas, Pekka; Johansson, Edvard; and Toivanen, Otto (2013). Heritability of Lifetime Income. Helsinki Center of Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 364

Visscher PM, Medland SE, Ferreira MAR, Morley KI, Zhu G, et al. (2006) Assumption-Free Estimation of Heritability from Genome-Wide Identity-by-Descent Sharing between Full SiblingsPLoS Genet 2(3): e41.

Davies, G., Tenesa, A., Payton, A., Yang, J., Harris, S. E., Liewald, D., … Deary, I. J. (2011). Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenicMolecular Psychiatry, 16(10), 996–1005.

Plomin, Robert et al. (2013). Common DNA Markers Can Account for More Than Half of the Genetic Influence on Cognitive AbilitiesPsychological Science, April 2013, 24(4) 562-568.

Trzaskowski, Maciej; Harlaar, Nicole; Arden, Rosalind; Krapohl, Eva; Rimfeld, Kaili; McMillan, Andrew; Dale, Philip S.; and Plomin, Robert. (2013) Genetic influence on family socioeconomic status and children’s intelligenceIntelligence, 42, 83-86.

Verweij, K. J. H., Yang, J., Lahti, J., Veijola, J., Hintsanen, M., Pulkki-Råback, L., … Zietsch, B. P. (2012). Maintenance of genetic variation in human personality: Testing evolutionary models by estimating heritability due to common causal variants and investigating the effect of distant inbreedingEvolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution, 66(10), 3238–3251.

Also see this wonderful and comprehensive review of the heritability of brain structure and the relationship between this structure and IQ:

Strike, Lachlan T.; Couvy-Duchesne, Baptiste; Hansell, Narelle K.; Cuellar-Partida, Gabriel; Medland, Sarah E.; and Wright, Margaret J. (2015) Genetics and Brain MorphologyNeuropsychology Review, March, 14, 2015.

And of course, my own blog posts on the matter:

All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable
Taming the “Tiger Mom” and Tackling the Parenting Myth
Environmental Hereditarianism
The Son Becomes The Father
More Behavioral Genetic Facts

As well as Harald Eia’s Brainwash episode “The Parental Effect



These five key blog posts by Steve Hsu:

(2008) Information Processing: “No scientific basis for race”
(2008) Information Processing: Human genetic variation, Fst and Lewontin’s fallacy in pictures
(2012) Information Processing: Rare variants and human genetic diversity
(2013) Information Processing: Learning can hurt
(2014) Information Processing: What’s New Since Montagu?

These papers describing some of the genetic processes used, particularly principal component analysis (PCA):

Price, Alkes L.; Reich, David (2006). Population Structure and EigenanalysisPLOS Genetics.
McVean, Gil (2009). A Genealogical Interpretation of Principal Components AnalysisPLOS: Genetics.

These blog posts by Peter Frost:
(2011) Evo and Proud: Apples, oranges, and genes
(2012) Evo and Proud: Trans-species polymorphisms

As well as these two by Greg Cochran:

(2012) Lewontin’s argument | West Hunter
(2014) Phenotypes vs genetic statistics | West Hunter

And this post by Razib Khan:

(2013) Why race as a biological construct matters | Gene Expression

This video of racial differences in newborn behavior:

Cross-Cultural Differences in Newborn Behavior
Discussed in Freedman, Daniel G. (1979). Human Sociobiology: A Holistic ApproachFree Press.

Also see: Kagan, Jerome, & Snidman, Nancy C. (2004). The long shadow of temperament. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

And also see my own blog post:

How Much Hard Evidence Do You Need?

And of course, Harald Eia’s Brainwash episode on Race.


Rushton, J. Philippe and Jensen, Arthur R. (2010). Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get ItThe Open Psychology Journal, 3, 9-35.

On the effect of poverty and socioeconomic status on IQ (there isn’t one) and said explanations for racial gaps, this blog post:

(2013) The Unsilenced Science: Black Suits, Gowns, & Skin: SAT Scores by Income, Education, & Race

Rushton, J. Philippe & Jensen, Arthur R.  (2010). The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gapIntelligence, 38, 213-219

Nijenhuis, J., & van der Flier, H. (2013). Is the Flynn effect on g?: A meta-analysisIntelligence

Nijenhuisa, Jan te; Jongeneel-Grimenb, Birthe; & Armstrong, Elijah L. (2015). Are adoption gains on the g factor? A meta-analysisPersonality and Individual Differences 73, 50-60.

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2007). Shattering Logic to Explain the Flynn EffectCato Unbound.

Lynn, Richard and Tatu Vanhanen. (2002). IQ and the Wealth of NationsPraeger/Greenwood.

Lynn, Richard (2008). The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide. Washington Summit Publishers.

Lynn, Richard and Tatu Vanhanen, (2012). Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences.

Also see this blog post by Jason Malloy (2006):

Gene Expression: A World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence

Also see the ongoing discussion over at Human Varieties

Also these posts by La Griffe du Lion:

(2002) The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations
(2004) Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag

Rindermann, Heiner (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: the homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nationsEuropean Journal of Personality 21, 667-706.

Rindermann, Heiner; Sailer, Michael; and Thompson, James (2009). The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competences of peoples on social developmentTalent Development & Excellence 1 (1), 3-25.

Christainsen, Gregory B (2013). IQ and the wealth of nations: How much reverse causality?Intelligence 41, 688-698.



Paul Fussell: Class: A Guide Through the American Status System
Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray: Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
Robert Gordon (La Griffe Du Lion): “Smart Fraction Theory” (Methodological flaws aside, the theory is insightful) and Smart Fraction Theory II
Charles Murray: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 [Hardcover]
Stanley, DankoThe Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy
Stanley: The Millionaire Mind
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The Black Swan: Second Edition: The Impact of the Highly Improbable Fragility”
Mandelbrot, Hudson:The Misbehavior of Markets: A Fractal View of Financial Turbulence

Harrison, Huntington: Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress
Francis Fukuyama: Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity [Paperback]
Sam Harris: Lying
Joel Kotkin: Tribes
Frank Salter: Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity; On Genetic Interests
Huntington: The Clash Of Civilizations
Becker: The Economic Approach To Human Behavior

THE HANJAL LINE – MATING PATTERNS (Trying to trim this section down)
SUMMARY: Kevin MacDonald “What Makes Western Culture Unique?”
John Hajnal, (1965): European marriage pattern in historical perspective en D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley, (eds.) Population in History, Arnold, Londres
Ansley J. Coale & Roy Treadway, (1986): The Decline of Fertility in Europe
David Levine, (1977): Family Formation in an Age of Nascent Capitalism
Wally Seccombe (1992): A Millennium of Family Change, Feudalism to Capitalism in Northwestern Europe, Verso.
Göran Therborn, (2004): Between Sex and Power, Family in the World, 1900–2000, Routledge Press (see pp. 144–45).
Mary S. Hartman (2004): The Household and the Making of History, A Subversive View of the Western Past, Cambridge University Press.
David I Kertzer and Marzio Barbagli. 2001. The history of the European family. New Haven: Yale University Press. p xiv
David Levine (1977): Family Formation in an Age of Nascent Capitalism, Academic Press. 152
Peter Laslett: The World We Have Lost.
Stephanie Coontz: Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.
De Moor, Tine and Jan Luiten van Zanden. 2009. Girl power: the European marriage pattern and labour markets in the North Sea region in the late medieval and early modern period.

Michael Mitterauer: Why Europe?: The Medieval Origins of Its Special Path
Bloch, Marc (1989-11-16). Feudal Society: Vol 1: The Growth and Ties of Dependence (2 ed.).
Bloch, Marc (1989-11-16). Feudal Society: Vol 2: Social Classes and Political Organisation (2 ed.). (“Feudal Society”, in its modern sense was coined in Marc Bloch’s 1939-40 books. He emphasized the distinction between economic manorialism which preceded feudalism and survived it, and political and social feudalism, or seigneurialism.)
Prosper Boissonnade; Eileen Power, Lynn White; Life and work in medieval Europe : the evolution of medieval economy from the fifth to the fifteenth century.
Henri Pirenne: Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe. Harcourt Brace & Company.

^ Peter Sarris, “The Origins of the Manorial Economy: New Insights from Late Antiquity”, The English Historical Review 119 (April 2004:279-311).
^ Horn, “On the Origins of the Medieval Cloister” Gesta 12.1/2 (1973:13-52), quote p. 41.
^ Andrew Jones, “The Rise and Fall of the Manorial System: A Critical Comment” The Journal of Economic History 32.4 (December 1972:938-944) p. 938; a comment on D. North and R. Thomas, “The rise and fall of the manorial system: a theoretical model”, The Journal of Economic History 31 (December 1971:777-803).
^ C.R. Whittaker, “Circe’s pigs: from slavery to serfdom in the later Roman world”, Slavery and Abolition 8 (1987:87-122.
^ Averil Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity AD 395-600, 1993:86.

Michael Levin: Why Race Matters:Race Differences and What They Mean
J. Philippe Rushton: Race, Evolution and Behavior
Gobineau; The Inequality of Human Races


– Milsom’s Natural History of the Common Law.
– Plucknett’s A Concise History Of The Common Law.
– Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty
Bastiat: The Law
Hayek: Law, Legislation, and Liberty
Leoni: Freedom and the Law
Benson: Enterprise of Law
Randy E. Barnett: The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law
Richard Epstein: How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution, Simple Rules for a Complex World.LEGAL CODES
The Code Of Hammurabi
(UNDONE: list the other early laws here)
The Athenian Constitution
Roman Law
The Anglo Saxon Codes
Magna Carta
The Articles Of Confederation
The US Declaration Of Independence, Constitution, and Original Bill of Rights.


Bernard Mandelville: The Fable Of The Bees: Private Vice Public Benefit
Leonard Read: “I, Pencil”
Hazlitt: Economics In One Lesson
Thomas Sowell: Basic Economics

Aristotle: Topics
Xenophon: Economics
Cantillon: Essai Sur la Nature du Commerce en Général.
David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751)
Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834),An Essay on the Principle of Population.
David Ricardo (1772–1823),
Adam Smith (1723–1790).
Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850);
William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882).

Popper: Sources of Knowledge And Ignorance
Popper: The Open Universe
Taleb: The Black Swan, Fooled By Randomness
Mandelbrot: ??
(undone: the essays on the socialist calculation debate, the essay on the incentive priority)

– Nock: Our Enemy, The State
– Rothbard: Man, Economy and State
Abstract Property Types (Options)


Montaigne: Essays
Hazlitt: Foundations Of Morality
Henry: In Defense Of Elitism

Robert Greene: The 48 Laws Of Power
Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends & Influence People (Mass Market Paperback)


Inside American Education, Thomas Sowell
The Conspiracy of Ignorance, Martin Gross
Real Education, Charles Murray
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Charlotte Iserbyt


Anthony F. Janson: History Of Art
Paul Johnson: Art: A New History
Ayn Rand: The Romantic Manifesto

Anon: Gilgamesh
Euripides:Cyclops, Heracles, Alcestis, Hecuba, Bacchae, Orestes, Andromache, Medea, Ion, Hippolytus, Helen, Iphigenia at Aulis
Aristophanes : The Birds, The Clouds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, The Knights, The Wasps, The Assemblywomen
Aesop’s Fables
Homer: The Illiad and the Odyssey
Virgil: The Aneid
Plutarch: Life of Alexander
Julius Caesar: The Conquest Of Gaul
Anon: Beowulf
Mallory: Le Morte De Arthur (England)
The Carolingian Cycle (The Matter Of France)
The Nibelungenlied (Germany)
The Norse Sagas (Norse)
Grimm: Grimm’s Fairy Tales
Spenser: Prothalamion; The Faerie Queene
Scott: Ivanhoe (Scott)
Tolkein: The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings (English)
Heinlein: Starship Troopers (American)
Herbert: Dune (American)


Bullfinch: Mythology
Campbell: The Hero’s Journey, The Hero With A Thousand Faces
Frazer: The Golden Bough
Nietzsche: The Birth Of Tragedy

Kagan: The Peleponnesian War


Sun Tzu: The Art Of War
The History of the Peloponnesian War: Revised Edition (Penguin Classics)
Julius Ceasar: Caesar’s Commentaries: On the Gallic War And on the Civil War
Julius Ceasar: The Conquest of Gaul
Machiavelli: The Prince
Machiavelli: The Art Of War
Carl Van Clausewitz: On War (2G Second Generation Warfare)
Antoine De Jomini: The Art Of War
Moltke: The Art Of War
Mao Tse-Tung: The Art of War (4G Fourth Generation Warfare)
B. H. Liddell Hart: Strategy: Second Revised Edition (Meridian)
Michael Handel: Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought
Martin van Creveld: Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (Paperback)
Robert Leonhard: The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and Airland Battle (3G Third Generation Warfare)
John Keegan: The Price of Admiralty: The Evolution of Naval Warfare

Martin van Creveld: The Rise and Decline of the State, Transformation of War, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century

Michael Handel: Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought
Bevin Alexander: How Wars Are Won: The 13 Rules of War from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror
Bevin Alexander: How Great Generals Win (Paperback)
John Keegan: The Mask of Command
Martin van Creveld: Command in War (everything he has written)
John Keegan: The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme
Donald Kagan: On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace (everything he has written)

Étienne de La Boétie: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
The IRA Green Book
The Marxist Mini Manual
The Protocols Of Zion
The Ten Planks Of The Communist Manifesto
Michael Jacoby Brown: Building Powerful Community Organizations
Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals
Rinku Sen: Stir It Up (Lessons in Community Organizing & Advocacy)
Randy Shaw: The Activist’s Handbook
Joe Szakos and Kristin Layng Szakos: Lessons from the Field: Organizing in Rural Communities

Donald W. Engels: Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army
The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third
John Keegan: A History of Warfare (Everything he has written.)
Archer Jones: The Art of War in Western World
Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age
Donald Kagan: (everything he has written)

Two-Person Game Theory
Differential Games: A Mathematical Theory with Applications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization
Numbers, prediction, and war: Using history to evaluate combat factors and predict the outcome of battles
Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War

Three Generations



Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is to resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community.

The Mises Institute group (Lew Rockwell) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the Marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation).othbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community.

That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the Jewish ghetto rather than the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant Christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired many Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon the equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation-states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity.

However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, Hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because, under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families.

What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism, and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without the exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men.

Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF.

For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males.

If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axes of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.)

It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests.


1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders)

2) Hoppe (private nation-state of landholders)

3) Doolittle (private federation of states of landholders)

With these three models, we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (Rothbard) to the most practical and moral (Hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (Doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where Hoppe and Rothbard have used PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction.

(That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism by restoring it to its european origins as rule of law of sovereign men: sovereignty. )


Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the Jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and Jews hyper-intellectual at the top. But, what Rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so.

Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the States’ actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy.

His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the Rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on argumentation or not.

I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive Jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable.


There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see Hoppe, Rothbard, and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got Praxeology backward. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since Athens.

Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary.

Everything else is preference.


Back Matter



About the Author

Burton E. ‘Curt’ Doolittle
Founder at The Propertarian Institute
Serial Entrepreneur in Seattle Tech Industry
Fine Art and Art History at the University of Hartford
St. Francis Xavier High School, Middletown, CT
From Canandaigua, New York
Lives in Kyiv, Ukraine

Email: curt.doolittle@gmail.com   Skype: curtdoolittle


“I work as a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition, at The Propertarian Institute. I’ve been fortunate enough in business that I have been able change careers and pursue my primary passion.

About The Propertarian Institute

The mission of the institute is to conduct research into, and teach a program of natural law, specializing in truthful, scientific, speech, in economics, politics, and law.

Site: https://propertarianinstitute.com
Email: propertarian.institute@gmail.com



Despite the fact that attacking the arguer rather than the argument is the crime of critique, I prefer to stand out in front of criticism rather than let people presume I’m making a moral claim about myself when I’m not.

List of legitimate Ad Hominem Criticism’s.

These are legitimate ad hominems. They are true. Everyone who follows me knows them.

They also have nothing to do with the work on Natural Law and the Logic and Science of the Social Sciences.

I am not a good person. I succeed because I am a natural infovore in an age where borderline autism is an asymmetric advantage like no other talent in history; hyper-competitive to the point of ruthlessness; predatory, creative, and driven often to the point of physical and emotional consequence. That is all.

I am, however, somewhere between a good and great philosopher of jurisprudence, testimony, and the natural law of cooperation, and my work will endure for centuries for no other reason than I am fortunate to live in an era where many scientific investigations despite many failures, have falsified a new set of pseudo-religions and found myself by accident with a correct diagnosis of the disease – purely by accident.

I am also not a normal person living a working-class lifestyle with little exposure to the power structures and systems of cooperation and conflict in civilizations across the world and across time. But I am acting in the interests of the laboring, working, and middle classes who have been abused on a scale not seen since Muslim slavery.

I am not a good person and don’t claim to be.
Truth doesn’t require that I be a good person.
It requires only that my work is not false.
And it is not false.





My goal is to create a rebellion or revolution sufficient to restoration of the constitution to one of Natural Law, and one that overthrows the Century of Lies and Mysticism of the 20th century, so that we can ‘go our separate ways’, or worse.

But moral men need more than just revolutionary sentiment. They need:

1) Moral Authority: We have been lied to, our civilization destroyed, our culture intentionally undermined, and our kin and relations the subject of a slow constant conquest and genocide.

2) A Solution: An alternative set of institutions that are capable of intertemporal persistence across many generations.

3) A Plan of Transition: the means by which to convert from the current state to the new state so that individuals and groups can envision that transition rather than fear the uncertainty of it.

4) A Method Of Revolution: The methods by which we raise the cost of the status quo until our solution is preferable to the current chaos.

My work is an attempt to that provide Moral Authority, A solution, A Plan of Transition, and a Method of Revolution to force a compromise we call “peaceful separation”.


King of the Hill Games

( … )

(the problem of social science surveys )


I work by aggressively attacking ideas to see if they can survive. This includes attacking cherished myths, traditions, and institutions, and all the values that accompany them. Observing this process can easily offend you.


I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad. Although, depending on the audience it can feel much more like a bar, gym, or locker room.

Testimony is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool in which to test ideas and seek criticism.

I am slaying a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and doing so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.)

But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution.

I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the not false and not irreciprocal..


I have developed the King of the Hillstrategy of discourse (teaching) because it is THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial-up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.

Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, Abrahamic, and non-argument.

I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them.

My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me“. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development).

That is why this game works.

Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.

The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of less than sufficiently educated men with access to digital discourse, and an unhealthy supply of unexpressed dominance, simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room, we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want an infant-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.

I teach argument. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.)

You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona.

This is educational entertainment and theatre.


I read science, economics, and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi-secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle-class criticism of the status quo.

So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

There is something in the content of the neutral point of view we find in encyclopedias. And aside from those works, I found the Germanic Fairy Tales, Pinnocchio, Johnny Tremain, Ivanhoe, Harlan Ellison, Heinlein, Ben Bova, and all the postwar science fiction authors fairly influential – they were all libertarian.

I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and Popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms – just as we study physics now as information not forces.

But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that as from the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal.

So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse.
The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasn’t quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere.

It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty of due diligence in matters of the commons.

So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the Wilsonian Synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law.

What I am writing is natural law.

The Only Possible Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics of Sovereignty.



(back page)


—“Aristotle encouraged Alexander toward eastern conquest and Aristotle’s own attitude towards Persia was unabashedly ethnocentric. In one famous example, he counsels Alexander to be “a leader to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians, to look after the former as after friends and relatives, and to deal with the latter as with beasts or plants”.—



(publisher page)



(publisher content)