The Law:
An Indictment
A Prelude to War

B. E . Curt Doolittle









The Law:
An Indictment
A Prelude to War





( quotes page )

“The Genius of Curt Doolittle”

“Doolittle has managed to combine, in an unusual way, the following intellectual traditions: 1)Nietzsche: Aristocratic Aryanism vs Abrahamism. 2) Darwin: theory of evolution, new cognitive science and group evolutionary strategy. 3) Jefferson/Adams: legal theory, statecraft, political liberty. 4) Austrian School of economics: marginalism, Menger, Hayek. 5) Epistemology and philosophy of science: his Testimonialism represents a real innovation. 6) Classicism: Homer, Aristotle, Stoicism / Epicureanism, etc. – Reconstructing civic life and the curriculum which existed in our Universities until very recently (around 1968). Brilliant thinkers specialize usually in one or two schools of thought, not six. Besides, his level of competence in these scientific fields is state of the art. Propertarianism completes science and reforms philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, politics and international relations.”

(title page)




The Law:
An Indictment
A Prelude to War





(copyright page)

Copyright © 2019 by _____ All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below.

Imaginary Press
1233 Pennsylvania Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94909

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?

The explanation of, and resolution of, the great conflict of our age.

It’s the prosecution of a case, including a judgement, and demand for restitution, punishment, and the prevention of any repetition, of  innovations in lying, fraud, theft and harm, against those who create the lies, and those who use those lies, those who excuse those lies, and those who are fools for those lies, which have been used to destroy not only our civilization both past and present, other civilizations with the goal of ending all civilization.   

These innovations in lying followed the industrial revolution and were industrialized by mass marketing, and they are the source of the conflict of our age.  But the technique by which this lying has created in the present is a repeat of the past use of the technique in response to the british empirical revolution, and the greek empirical revolution.

It’s also a case for the restoration of separation between those who desire arbitrary rule, and those who desire rule of law, and a new renaissance for those who desire rule of law. and if this compromise is unacceptable, there is no alternative to the bloodiest war in history – other than a repeat of the destruction of the great civilization of the ancient world.


1. to explain the conflict of this era – and all previous eras
. ( … )

The constitution solves the principle problem of the industrial age by demanding truth, reciprocity, and warranty in all aspects of commerce and commons, as means by which to end:

1. falsehood by ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit;
2. false promise,
3. baiting into hazard, and
4. rent-seeking (gains without contribution to the risk of productivity),
5. profiting from harms, or penalty;
6. undermining,
7. restoring power distances commercial, political, and juridical
8. especially juridical defense of private and commons.

By requiring full reciprocity:
1. productive (prohibition on rents and free riding)
2. fully informed ( prohibition on false promise, obscurantism)
3. voluntary transfer (prohibition on takings of demonstrated interests)
4. including by externality (including others indirectly)
5. warrantied (liability for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer).

Where all speech in such matters is treated as legal testimony, meaning it must meet the criteria of consistency in the dimensions:
1. categorical,
2. logical,
3. operational,
4. empirical,
5. rational (rational choice within limits of bounded rationality),
6. reciprocal
7. complete within stated limits,
And the consequences of which are:
8. within one’s ability to perform restitution.

In addition it enacts:
1. Reformations To institutions and processes thereby eliminating all means of parasitism.
2. Restitutions To those who have been harmed.
3. Punishments For those who have done harm.
4. Preventions: changes in the constitution and the law creating a continuous market for profiting from the punishment of these forms of parasitism, once again forcing us into the market for voluntary cooperation in order to survive, prosper, and flourish.

The Peace of westphalia, by which europeans domesticated warfare:
1. suppressed physical warfare, making states liable for maintaining a monopoly of violence in exchange for protecting the citizenry by limiting conflict to war between states by their militaries;

2. persisted economic warfare, and the benefits therefrom;

3, failed to anticipate or adapt to financial warfare and the harms therefrom;

4. but failed to suppress warfare by non-military means: undermining by pseudomathematics in economics, pseudoscience in the social sciences, sophistry in philosophy, the academy, the law, political speech, and propaganda; undermining by tolerance of hostile political systems masquerading as religions; and immigration of hostile peoples unwilling, unable, or unfit for integration into european civilization sufficiently to persist the benefits to europeans and by extension to the world.  There are only three means of warfare: physical, economic, and undermining; and the european world does not defend against undermining because like all peoples we are only conscious of warfare by our civilizational means of it: because of our entrepreneurial rule, near kinship, small numbers, profesional warriors, the use of technology and manerver, we settle differences quickly before they scale, and return to production and taxation. And our civilization,  which as entrepreneurial is founded on markets in everything, but prohibiting violence upon each other, is not how the chinese or the semites practice practice warfare – the chinese by deceive, delay, and accumulate power, and the semites by continuous undermining from within and raiding from without; and indians by absorbing and integrating and passive resistance until they reach the limit of their tolerance. The indians and europeans are similar in civilization and strategy, the semites and the chinese are our opposites.
3. each civilization produces harmony by… (china, india, semitia, europe, and africa has not yet)

And where;
5. in every age, from sun tzu in china, to machiavelli in the renaissance, to hobbs, locke, smith, hume, madison, hamilton, adams, jefferson in the empirical enlightenment, to von clausewitz, to frederick the great in prussian restoration of european traditional rule, to lenin, mao, and the great generals of the second world war,

6. this work is structured as The prosecution of war crimes By entire classes of people, and the resulting restitutions, punishments, and preventions imposed under natural law.
7. this work .. (addresses these isues)  (institutionalizes this knowledge So it cannot be forgotten.

This innovation in the scope of suppression of crime under our law will be the greatest boon to western civilization since the industrial revolution, and will effectively outlaw the entire leftist program, prosecute, impoverish, ostracize, or imprison (or worse) those who have perpetrated this crime against our people.

While the great lies of the twentieth have caused a hundred million dead and brought about the possibility of a second dark age, the great lie of the continental-democratic age is that we have sold democratic government and anglo capitalism or democratic socialism as a benefit to man, when the organization of government is largely irrelevant, and the economy must always consist of mixture of private for efficiency and innovation and state for strategic investment that is required for all people – it is the european rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, forcing all, including members of the church and state, into productive service of one another in markets out of mutual self interest, combined by that extension of the law of evidence we call european reason, science, logic, and mathematics that have been the cause of our success in the modern age and in the ancient.

2. to provide a reasonable proposition for all parties: This constitution, continuing anglo legal tradition, provides a solution that is the best possible for all parties, without being the optimum solution for any party. However, if this constitution is resisted by opposition parties, then the terms escalate in favor of the traditional america people and their way of life, as the ‘third way ‘ between dominant state, dominant religion: a middle class majority producing a natural aristocracy by market meritocracy, under rule of the natural law of reciprocity. These terms of escalation are preferred by the traditional people over preservation of those seeking to use the political, economic, and military scale of the continents, and the ease of obtaining political power under first past the post, majoritarian democracy, lacking any criteria for the franchise, while using underclass immigration, to achieve by invasion what is not achieved by ideas, evidence,  or results.

3. to de-escalate, de-monopolize, and re-specialize: to facilitate the separation of groups into separate political orders wherein each can produce commons preferred by their groups without imposing upon the preference of those who desire to produce different commons. This separation restores voluntary association and disassociation, and restore political customization, as was present in all of european history – even under a loosely federal church. And restores that political customization which was the intention of the original american constitution, and that demand for political customization that remains the demonstrated interest of all present political factions – despite each seeking to dominate the others and obtain a monopoly rather than separate, in violation of american, british, european, legal, social, and economic traditions….wealthy enough to specialize

4. to depoliticize: (restore rule of law and markets)
.( … ) decrease the power distance.

( … ) (power via the state)

( … ) ( restoration of the jury )

De-discretionism (restoration of rule of law/courts)

( … ) ( undone )

( … ) (  prevention of pooling and laundering  )

Re-statement and restoration (of our rights)

( … )

( .. ) definition of alienation, prevention of alienation, illegality of proposing alienation.

( … ) (restoration of universal standing in matters of the commons) (undone)


( … )

6. to de-consumer-predationize – increase consumer protections both public and private:
.( … )

7. to de-financialize: We include the largest economic reform since the roman empire, and the reorganization of the treasury and financial system such that it is in the interests of the working and middle classes that desire to raise families.  Aside from the reformation of the law, the economic reforms are the most influential and will provide the greatest benefit to the people regardless of political interest. The greatest frustrations of the european people are due substantially to the abuse of our people by the financial system – abuses which if the people understood fully, would alone cause revolt and demand for this constitution.The talking points are: nationalization of consumer credit, and all consumer credit issue direct from the treasury at simple interest dependent entirely on your disposable income; management of the money supply by distribution of liquidity directly to consumers into their treasury accounts, instead of distributing through the financial class and the banking system – this will cause businesses to fight for your money, not you fight for credit that puts you at risk, and extracts your income from you when it was your country the money was borrowed from in the first place; the acquisition and nationalization of the consumer credit card network; and the  creation and distribution of multiple currencies on those cards, so that we separate the monetary economies of survival, and preferential goods and services, similar to how we use ebt cards for food stamps today.  This means your home will be paid off in ten to fifteen years, meaning a one-income household can afford a home and children, your cars will cost sticker-price – and the eradication of the credit collection network..


DEfinancialization of the financial system. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).

By nationalizing mastercard, and issuing one every legal and fully integrated citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the money supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.

Furthermore, by professionalizing ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do cpa’s), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.

This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors. There will be no other way to profit than the silicon valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.

Financialism will be destroyed forever.

De-individualism-corporatization and re-familialism

( … ) ( undone )

Re-civilism of education, healthcare, defense

( … ) ( undone )

8. re-familism – to restore the family As the object of policy and society – not the individual.
.( … )

10. re-civilism – to restore the civil society and social harmony
.( … )

9. re-testimonialism – to restore truthful speech:
.( … )

5. de disinformationalism – to de-disinformationalize
.( … )

De-propagadism (copyright / testimony)

PRopaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response.

The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We must rely upon intuition – we have no other choice.

The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to freudian psychology, to keynesian economics, the anthropology of franz boas, to the outright fabrications of the frankfurt school, to the postmodern philosophers, to american feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media.

These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means.

In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons.

We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgment on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’.

The media (undone) ( … )

The academy (undone) ( … )

The arts (undone) ( … )

Advertising and marketing (undone) ( … )

Religion (undone) ( … )

11. to prevent another dark age:
.( … )

12. to bring about a new renaissance
.( … )

The constitution

1. you can, we can, anyone can, write a constitution In propertarianism’s natural law of reciprocity, – or what we abbreviate as ‘p-law” –  for any system of government, any economic model, and for any group of peoples, as long as it is stated in the vocabulary, grammar, and compositional form, of p-law – and as long as it’s fully reciprocal, transparent, and its claims are testifiable by man.

P-law, like mathematics or programming, expresses constitutions in formal operational logic, that eliminates the ability of the political class if there is one, from engaging in parasitism upon the people, and eliminates the ability of the people within the population engaging in parasitism upon each other. The only challenge we have found, is that it is difficult for those wishing a purely theological order to convert theological statements of law, to scientific statements of law – although it is possible – the faithful resist the reduction of the empathic to scientific terms.

Given that we can write a constitution for any political, social, and economic order using p-law, Our objective is to produce a set of constitutions In p-law For all european peoples – and for any other peoples who seek to enjoy the returns on rule of law by reciprocity – the system of rule of the european peoples.  And while all such constitutions will overlap considerably especially given our new articles i, ii, iii, iv;  and while this constitution may be used as a template for future constitutions, what we have presented here is a constitution for the reformation and restoration of the united states of america and an end to the conflict whose present course is certain to lead to civil war.

We have learned from history that unstated compromises become unstated presumptions.

Therefore we caution readers that when drafting a solution of this scope to a problem of this scope we have erred on the side of completeness; and while we doubt any modification of the Law Put forth in the Articles, that we anticipate some tempering of policies in The Acts.

4. we have chosen to reform the existing constitution Of the united states of america in continuation of the group strategy and political strategy of the european peoples, and in particular the northern european peoples, so that we may preserve the disproportionate utility of the strategy of the european peoples, and the anglo-american third-way of a rapidly adapting, middle class majority, commons-producing, nuclear-family, high-trust civilization and its civil society – not only for our own present and future, but for mankind’s present and future.

5. this constitutional reformation includes a set of amendments To that constitution of the united states of america that repeal, restate, and reform the preamble, articles, and amendments of that constitution. The principal reasons for reform rather than replacement are a) to preserve the corporation of the state as a “going concern”, reducing the continental and international military, economic, and political uncertainty, conflict, and chaos that would ensue otherwise, and b) to preserve the military, judiciary, treasury, and function of insurer of last resort, thereby prohibiting foreign interests from obtaining a political, military or economic foothold on the continent; while c) devolving the choice of normative policy – meaning social policy – to the city-states, states, counties, and localities.

6. a caution: you will undoubtedly encounter concepts that are novel particularly in economics and law – and some political propositions that while true, have been subjected to foolish, dishonest, or fraudulent criticism during and after the french counter-empirical enlightenment period. We beg your patience in thoroughly understanding the full scope of this work, and wee put forth the suggestion that despite your anticipated surprise, conflict, or rejection: It is extremely unlikely that we err In our assertions, arguments, or propositions. The reason being the innovation upon which this reformation rests, is the completion of the scientific method, and it’s extension from the physical to the psychological, social, economic, legal, political, group strategic, and military disciplines. And not only have we thought through the consequences of these propositions but producing those consequences is the purpose of these propositions. And should anyone disagree with them our first question is whether they understand those consequences, and if so, our second question must be why they wish to preserve the capacity for deceit, fraud, theft, and parasitism that destroyed the ancient world, produced a dark age, and threatens the present repetition of both.

In preparation for the future

We are, all of us, victims of the circumstances of our experience in the era of our maturity and education. Because of this natural bias to the present, we have difficulty envisioning a future that is very different from the one we anticipated, and the forces that bring it into being that are beyond our control.

In preparation for the future we prudently present the future challenges that will exacerbate the present challenges, if we do not adapt to that future rather than attempt to reconstruct an impossible past.

(painful truths) in addition to correcting the crimes of the past, organize for the future.

Falsehoods of the twentieth and twenty-first
Integration has been a failure worldwide
1, end of the european period
2. the end of ‘growth’
3. the end of genetic capital
2, the end democracy
2. the usa’s interest in instability in the world, not stability
2. restoration of the balance of powers
3. the restoration of total war and the end to european domesticatino of war
3. the problem of judaism and islam

Remilitarization for return of total war

Reorganization of the state and military

Military: state, trade, economy, education, culture, information,

Conflated military, state, law, govt. Must again deconflate and divide functions to prevent the repeat of this failure.

Reorganization of government

The british experiment

The government of the british empire during the colonial period and up until the second world war, was the greatest achievement in political organization in european history combining rule of law, a monarchy, houses for the classes managing assets, the church for those lacking resources and ability, and the entrepreneurial and scientific classes’ technological, economic, legal, financial, intellectual superiority, and the long standing cultural openness to meritocratic rotation in the classes by one or one’s family’s demonstrated achievements.

The monarchy, nobility(lords), and the house(commons) made a few understandable but avoidable mistakes – because they were following an ancient tradition – a tradition whose origins predated their historical knowledge – without understanding the reasons for its successes – a failure we correct here.

Those mistakes were rather simple in retrospect: the failure to understand the reasons for their disproportionate successes; the failure to write the constitution in formal language insulated from abuse; the failure to create a house for each of the colonies, thereby preventing the american revolution, contributing to the american civil war, and the subsequent failure of the colonial project, and especially the failure to transform india from whom it had extracted yet failed to complete transformation; the inclusion of labor into the house of commons instead of creating a separate house for labor upon the failure of the church to transform in the face of the darwinian revolution; the inclusion of women into the house of commons rather than a separate house; an attempt to maintain the balance of powers rather than the german expansion, and the russian recapture of constantinople, reversing the islamic conquest. And the failure to transform the lords into a supreme court for the legislature and weakening it instead; and finally a weakening of the monarchy’s role as judge of last resort – meaning veto – due to the failures of the political process, the fashions, passions, and fears of the day, to which all peoples are subject, and from which the monarchies are of their nature and interest, insulated.

In effect, the failure of the british to grasp that the government had served as a market between the classes despite their different interests and scales, and that under rule of law they had created not only the worlds most successful commercial market for the production of goods, services, and information – but the world’s most successful market for the production of commons.

A market for commons allows the unavoidable differences between classes of families, each of which has demonstrated different ability, to engage in exchanges within the political sphere, without resorting to propaganda, deceit, and coercion outside both inside and out. instead, our peoples were made vulnerable to the industrialization of false promise, baiting into their own hazard, comforting deceits, and bribery in government and finance in exchange for the destruction of the institutions that had made their disproportionate success possible.

The american experiment.

The american experiment included many of the same failures as the british, and some unique to the states. The single success was spectacular if inadequate, and that was: a declaration, federalist papers, constitution, and bill of rights, stating the natural law of sovereign men, and their natural right to life, liberty, and property and a government for the ‘third way”: a middle class government, of commercial meritocracy without aristocracy or nobility, in an attempt to defend itself from the parasitism of the church and the landed nobility.

The canadian experiment

( … )

The australian experiment

( … )

The big lie of the anglo revolution and continental counter-enlightenment

( … )

The un-earned franchise past and present

( … )

. . .

Is this philosophy, law or science?

Testimony: actions, truth, decidability vs philosophy, words (text), choice

WE are what we do. i am, as are all of us, what i do. and in the past, what i do was called a philosophy – at least when referring to aristotle.

We have no word today for what i do. neither philosophy, nor the law, nor science is sufficient. Instead, my work unifies science, law, and philosophy, combining them into what i call testimony or Testimonial truth.

I am writing to, and speaking to you in Testimony, using the vocabulary and grammar of natural law. natural law is the equivalent of the physical laws of physics, chemistry, and biology,  but for the human sciences of language, psychology, sociology, ethics, economics, politics, and law.

Please don’t blame me for the obvious confusion between Physical laws of nature, and the Natural law of man. our ancestors left us with these terms. I inherited them just as you did.

Writing in Testimony Will sound much more like i’m a prosecutor than a philosopher or scientist. That’s because philosophers advise, scientists describe, and the law decides. So the law doesn’t – and i don’t, prevaricate with comforting or polite words open to interpretation. The law does, and i do, prosecute claims, and judge the evidence. And we aren’t addressing a subject for cheerful or comforting discourse.

Decidability: science, natural law, testimony
Choice: Philosophy
: 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.

. . .

How to read this book

THis book (or what is traditionally called a pamphlet) is organized by from accessible explanations in the beginning to increasing complexity toward the end so that we can reach most audiences with it. you need only read those parts that you are comfortable with – or all those parts that might find value in.

Parts 1, 2, and 8 – if you consider yourself the Average person, part 1, part 2, and then skip to part 8, that is all you will need to read. Although i suspect at some point you will want to know more.

Part 3 – if you want to understand the definitions and learn how to understand basic terms of economics, government, law, truth, and lying, then read part 3 also. Although you will discover my use of lists and formatting. And some people find this very organized and enlightening, but others find it confusing. Why? They require you have a bit more knowledge, but they help you remember more complex ideas easily.

Part 4 – if you want to understand the abrahamic technique of lying that caused the disasters of the ancient world and threaten a repeat by creating the present conflict in the modern world, then read part 4 – abrahamism.

Part 5 – historical problems of the religions

Part 6 – religion constitution, and what distinguishes a good religion from a bad

Part 7 – the crimes done by abrahamic methods of deceit past and present

Part 8 – the indictment, the judgement of natural law, the offer of settlement, and the demand for restitution and threat of punishment.

Why the terms, lists, diagrams?

You will notice right away, that in testimony, we use a lot of lists of various kinds. That’s for a number of reasons: Creating measurements from words, simplifying complexity, helping you jog your memory When you need to, and helping you Scan for ideas When you need to jog your memory.

1. turning ordinary language into a system of measurement

For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a Number line. and when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same.

So in testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others

So let’s use ‘Moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often.

Good, moral, ethical, right amoral, wrong, unethical, immoral, evil

Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point.

Good < moral < ethical < right < |amoral| > wrong > unethical > immoral, > evil

And then define them as actions:

Good: when you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you.
Moral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t.
Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t.
Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t.
Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t.
Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does.
Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do.
Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t.
Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you.

Where the “Constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others.

So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech.

When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in testimony can use them the same way.  And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use.

We call this technique “Disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ and then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated.

Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “Commensurability” Regardless of the subject matter.

Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences.

Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is Reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim.

And that is the purpose of testimony: to create a System of 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. The Natural Law of European Peoples

The Natural Law of the European Peoples

The group evolutionary strategy of the european peoples has remained constant for thousands of years – through the bronze, Mediterranean, Continental, Steel, Naval Colonial, and Post-war, periods. And that’s because our traditional law that reinforced that strategy remained constant independent of the various attempts at reorganizing rule.

But despite this consistency, the west never had a bible – just a Canon; and that Canon was written in multiple frames, including scientific, legal, philosophical, normative, literary, and theological.

Philosophy, theology, and tradition are just vehicles for perpetuating a group strategy in a grammar of wishes. Law is the result of what actually occurs – not what is wished for. Our Founding Fathers, after generations of the english civil wars, sought to reduce that canon to constitution. But they lacked the skill we developed in the 20th because of programming, the sciences, and the collapse of the philosophical program. They were successful despite those weaknesses as long as the heroic narrative of the revolution persisted, or what the founders said was dependent upon the moral teachings of the church.

The failure of the church to reform in the face of Darwin and the sciences, the replacement of the church with the academy, the capture of the academy by the left, combined with Anti-westernism, under guise of privilege, colonialism, and slavery provided the means of undermining that narrative.

So we must complete the greco-roman-germanic-anglo-american research program and produce that bible in the form of a constitution such that no narrative can undermine it, without causing our retaliation.

We need to create the white law – a rational, scientific, western competitor to Jewish law and Muslim sharia. A strict construction from our founding differences: sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, judge and jury, heroism and excellence, family and commons, and the market for voluntary cooperation in all walks of life – that together produce the social-political and economic order most rapidly open to adaptation and innovation.

We need a constitution and a law closed to interpretation open to innovation, but beyond which no man, private, public, or foreign may tread.

Heroism and excellence, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, and Duty, Judge and Jury, and markets in all aspects of life: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war.

That is the secret to western civilization. Sovereignty – and its consequences.

In this section we codify for the first time, The Natural Law of the European Peoples – not only to explain, and inform, but to prevent repetition of the dark ages past and present, and to provide for the european peoples that which others have codified: a logic and body of law beyond which none may tread by display word or deed – especially those in the military, state, government, treasury, and academy.

  1. The Europeans

The Europeans

“The Origin of the West is The Militia
Our laws nothing but mutual insurance.
Our Constitution nothing but a contract.
A contract is nothing without insurance.
That insurance is nothing but the militia.
That militia nothing but all able men bearing arms.”

In The Beginning – An Accidental Uniqueness

The uniqueness of the west originated on the steppe, north and east of the black sea, where sometime after the great deluge, two groups of people, empowered by bronze, developed a new understanding of their relationship with nature, and each other. Their first myth was that of the blacksmith, they bargained with the gods, but no longer depended upon them. They could drink milk, and so had forty percent more calories for the same effort than their competitors. Because they forged metal and profited from war, they practiced magic rather than mysticism. They elected their kings and shared plunder. They formed entrepreneurial, contractual, raiding parties for profit – that Vikings, Adventurers, and Pirates would repeat. They used formation, speed, maneuver. And their horses, chariots, and weapons were expensive – the investment of a family in a risky proposition. They directed aggression to the production of commons. They avoided the centralization of power endemic to the alluvial plains and their rivers. And they decimated every population from Spain to the borders of China and spread their language across most of Eurasia, and their descendants across the world.

That alone would not differentiate them from the Arabs, Mongols or Turks. But, throughout European history, a young man took some variation of an oath upon his maturity – meaning he had joined the Militia: “I shall not lie, steal, or show cowardice, or strike me dead.” This oath survived throughout our history in every age, in some form or other – until the present era.

And this ‘testimony’ this ‘oath’ is the secret of the west: by the combination of technological discipline, oath, contract, risk (battle), military reporting – what we call truthful (empirical) testimony, were judged only by a jury of peers, had an independent judiciary of any headman they chose, the sacredness of that oath as the basis for natural, judge-discovered, common law, a people small in number, against much greater numbers, and much greater wealth will innovate, and adapt to change FASTER if not first, than all other civilizations known to man.

This isn’t a romantic literary attempt to glorify conquest, colonialism, raiding (by land), Viking (raiding land by sea), piracy (raiding sea lanes by sea), or the rather exceptional ability of westerners to produce professional warriors supported by a militia that could successfully conduct murderous warfare against superior numbers – largely by discipline and technology. Instead, it’s an effort to explain an accident of history – the necessity of a militia organizing warfare by entrepreneurial – meaning contractual – rather than authoritarian means, and the consequences that evolved from that single necessity. Small differences in great numbers, over long periods, produce vastly different consequences. We are, all of us, in every civilization, anchored in conceptual, linguistic, social, economic, legal, political, and military traditions by strategic paradigms, values, and decisions we are only vaguely unaware of. And throughout our journey together we will slowly acquire an understanding of how vast those differences can be – and how beautiful or terrible the consequences. Because while we may speak to one another and share daily human experiences, we do not share metaphysical (‘what’s real’), conceptual, linguistic, familial, social, economic, political, military, experiences , ideas, or values. And when it comes to truth, trust, reciprocity, and commons, we might as well be aliens from another world.

Because of the Oath, and the demand to speak martial truth (reporting) at all times, when the entire male population had be indoctrinated by that oath and the possibility of military participation. We made self sacrifice heroic. Not a drain on one’s status but a contribution to it.

The west is exceptional by accident. But it was a glorious accident. The accidental adoption of technology and magic, individual sovereignty, military testimony, the militia, and testimony before one’s peers – because once a group practices sovereignty, evidentiary truth, warranty of one’s words, and rule of law, the result can only be facts, reasonableness, reason, empiricism, science, and technology. And that is what happened. The secret of the west is something we take for granted but it unique to western civilization: truth before face, regardless of impact on the status and dominance hierarchy. Truth as an act of heroism. A contribution to the commons. The direction of dominance expression and direction of profits, to the production of commons.

What Defines ‘European’?

The IE peoples were a mixture of west Eurasians surviving the ice age.

The neolithic ended with the proto groups of no less than the Europeans (west), finnics (north-center) caucasian-iranics (center), and Turkics (northeast).

There is some disruption around the black sea, likely the deluge, changing the freshwater center of humans in Eurasia, like the freshwater region of south-central Africa where humans evolved.

Freshwater to saltwater changes human radiation patterns, particularly into the marshes of the Euphrates in eastern Anatolia northern Mesopotamia.

By combining horse, bronze, wheel, The IE expansion occurs due to conflict between the European and caucasian-iranics. Speculation is that this is why the religions bifurcated into those competing with gods (west) and those subject to gods (east).

The IE Expansion covered everything from the Tip of Spain to the interior of China.

The Eastern IE branches and some migrate east eventually into the Indus river either causing or finishing the collapse of the Indus river civilization, and creating the indo’s or iranic-Dravidians.

The other branch migrates south, into today’s Persia, and then backward wast, under the Caspian, into the caucuses.

The Levantine Caucasians(black sea) are gone. The original Caucasians(black sea) are almost gone. the Anatolian Caucasians (black sea) are entirely gone. The old European Caucasians (Balkans, black sea) are almost gone.

The neolithic farmer population that survived in the Balkans (old Europe), southern Italy, and Sardinia are all that remain.

The Western IE expansion eradicated every male, leaving only the females.

The Center of cultural development was between the baltic and the black sea in what is today’s Poland and Ukraine.

The Aristocracy, in another migration, conquered downward into old Europe – the migration that appears to have caused the bronze age collapse, enslaving the neolithic farmers, creating what we think of as Greece.

West Indo Europeans share

The Indo European language, Heroic, Militaristic, Expansionist, Paternalistic, Sky Worshipping, Metalworking, entrepreneurial warfare of conquest, using technology professional warriors, horse, and chariot, financed by families, and then profiting from conquest by tripartism: the domestication of human animals from slaves, to freemen, to ‘sovereigns’, under the traditional law of trespass (tort, property), where every man is sovereign, reciprocity the means of dispute resolution, restitution demanded in all but cowardice or adultery – the only capital crimes.

Greece was just the first set of Europeans to hold seafaring territory (or flood river plain) so that trade was sufficient that writing and numbers were necessary, and as such, imported like all others, the technologies of

The origin of the proto-European Genome is a bottleneck during the ice age.
The origin of Ethnic Europeans is Ukraine. (Yamna)
The origin of European civilization is Poland. (corded ware)
The origin of European WRITTEN thought is Greece
The origin of european administration is Rome

The conquest of European people was achieved by undermining, with Semitic religions during the migration of the germanic into the void left by Rome’s genocide against the Celts, and pressure from the next steppe migration.

But it was the Muslim destruction of trade routes, and every great civilization of the ancient world that destroyed the European economy. And between the church’s spreading of superstition and ignorance and submission, instead of roman spreading of literacy, infrastructure, and trade, Europe suffered the Semitic (Abrahamic) dark ages.

The restoration of European trade was Lotharingia (Italy to north sea through Germany), he Viking raids establishing trade to Byzantium,, the german through the north sea and Baltics under the Hansa, the Spanish, French, and English across the Atlantic.

The restoration of European thought was the North Sea (England France(geometry-measures instead of just algebra-words), and Scotland). And with the founding of the royal society, science was restored.

Until Marx, Boaz, Freud, Adorno, cantor, Derrida, and countless others reformed supernatural Abrahamic deceit into pseudoscientific Abrahamic deceit and sold a new network of false promise and deceit to underclasses, minorities (slaves in the old world) and women – always vulnerable to ‘free stuff’ false promises rather than the burden of darwin’s truths.

Aristotle wrote down his people’s way of life by studying constitutions. He did the best he could and no other in human history compared. Plato tried to import Persian tyranny. Socrates tried to import Semitic undermining. Aristotle had both of them to observe and wrote down instead, what had made Europeans achieve: truthful testimony about the world by empirical evidence and empirical evidence alone.

Which is exactly what I do now that we no longer are ignorant of the physical laws of the universe.

So, no more lies.

European Civilization

European Civilization Consists in: The Indo European language, Heroic, Militaristic, Expansionist, Paternalistic, Sky Worshipping, Metalworking, entrepreneurial warfare of conquest, using technology professional warriors, horse, and chariot, financed by families, and then profiting from conquest by tripartism: the domestication of human animals from slaves, to freemen, to ‘sovereigns’, under the traditional law of trespass (tort, property), where every man is sovereign, reciprocity the means of dispute resolution, restitution demanded in all but cowardice or adultery – the only capital crimes.

European Civilization consists in Heroism and Competition, Cunning and Maneuver, Technology and Innovation, Excellence and Beauty, Promise and Contract, Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth before face and Duty before Self, The Natural Law of Tort and Jury, The Accumulation of Common Law and the Incremental suppression of Parasitism, and the resulting service of one another by competition in markets in all aspects of life; the direction of proceeds to the production of capital commons, and the continuous rapid evolution of European man as a result. 

Europeans dragged man kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, heat, cold, and the chaos of a natural world all but hostile to human life.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism.  The Cult of Sovereignty is that only heroes can bear.

The Group Evolutionary Strategy of The European Peoples: Adaptation.

  1. Maneuver: Rapid Adaptation
  2. Militia and Entrepreneurial Warfare,
    …. contractual pursuit of warfare,
    …. technology, and maneuver.
    …. to compensate for inferior numbers.
  3. The Returns on the domestication of the animal man, such that some may rise to increase our numbers.
  4. The Direction of Dominance Expression to the Production of Returns on Commons.
  5. The use of natural eugenics of direction the proceeds of production to the production of commons.
  6. The Asymmetric returns of investments in the Returns on Commons.
  7. The most expensive common of which are high trust norms and the resulting velocity therefrom – and that no other peoples have or have sought to produce.

Our Warfare

Small Numbers,
Oath, Promise, Contract, Formation, Persistence
Speed (Adaptation), Maneuver,
Settle Problems Early, Before Numbers Accumulate (compare with china, India)

(list generations of warfare)


Our Strategy

Organizing Society For The Continuous Production of Agency

Our Metaphysics

( … )
Metallurgy, Magic,

Our Aesthetics

( … )

Our Method

Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, excellence, beauty, heroism, duty, rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, where the market for suppression of parasitism we call the law, and the market for reciprocity in the production of goods, services, and information, evolve as rapidly as possible, thereby advancing productive innovations in each other’s interests, and suppression innovations in parasitism against others interests, in exchange for suppressing the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, thereby allowing us to divert surplus proceeds of our production to the commons and the higher returns for all from those commons, the most important of which are truth before face, promise, contract, trust, warranty, economic and innovative velocity, and the prosperity, joy, and peace of mind that results from them.

Our Law

( … )

Our Testimony

Truthful testimony regardless of subject, regardless of cost, warrantied by due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit, by the demand for consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice by the actors involved, full accounting of cause and consequence, and the most parsimonious (simple) of those arguments that survive.

Our Government

( … )

Our Economies

( … )

Our Commons

( … ) (societies)

Our Discourse

( … ) Only Superior Solutions not Criticisms (market competition only)

Our Families and Marriage

( … )

Our Manners


Our Dress


Our Selves

( … )

Our Price

( … ) Eugenics.

Our Religion

A religion provides mindfulness (debt-free, or credit) from internal and external debt stresses, at different scales, by delivering a system of measurement by which to judge and account for one’s thoughts words and deeds, providing the pre-rational brain with calm (sedation) and relaxation sufficient for dreaming, daydreaming, restive action, energetic action, interpersonal and political action without worry – which causes stress by drawing attention to the debts. It is difficult to accept that this is the source of all religious emotion – the safety of a pack having completed a hunt, celebrated, shared, feasted and resting together. But that is the origin of it. Religions provide a means of reducing stresses on the neuro-emotional economy, with a range of services that suppress the intuitive impulse for worrying about debts to others whether real or imagined, and the feeling of safety, security, peace, elation, and even euporia through practice – which trains (eventually) the intuition out of habitual worry the intensity of which is a product of our genetics, gender, and early development.

As the division of labor increases. As our prosperity increases with it. As our differences in our ability to learn and work with complexity increase. And as we increasingly specialize in empathic personal (faith), Rational Social (Traditional), and Empirical Political (Scientific, economic, legal) our demand for the services of religion also specializes with the rest of our paradigms of thought (empathy, reason,  science). Furthermore, as our prosperity increases we find less demand for and value in any monopoly of those religious services,, and more value in a market for them. As such we find ourselves ‘sorting’ into groups with shared interests.

Why? Because under small hunter-gatherer communities we speciated in into differences. Under agrarianism, we synthesized our differences (paganism). Under imperial agrarianism, we imposed religion(monotheism) to eliminate differences so that we could be rules without conflict and taxed by priests and state for profit more easily. but with the arrival of industrialization and now technological innovation we are wealthy enough that we can afford to and desire to pursue our genetic and cultural preferences.  And as such we return to speciation and a desire for the services of religion that assist us in re-speciation.

And there is no reason not to. And in doing so restore the market for ideas and bearing the consequence of employing those ideas – good or bad.  And the evidence is that only gypsies, Judaism, Islam, migration, and colonization are bad. The rest – Hindu, Christianity-paganism, east Asian nationalism are good. And Africa is trying to build out of pan Africanism – and they have not had the time – and are too ready to blame others rather than reform themselves.

Religious Spectrum
1. Psychological Discipline (mindfulness)
2. Hearth Religion (Birth, Oath, Marriage, and Death)
3. Integrated (folk) religion (mythology, paganism, social)
4. Conspiratorial (institutional) religion (priesthood, temples, political)
5. Competing Religion (church, divisive, dividing)
6. undermining religion (resisting, undermining)
7. enemy religion (conquesting)

Function              Market
..................... personal, familial, social, political, warfare
...(debt account)
.. debts kin (dead)
.. debts nature
.. debts social
.. debts political
.. profits political 

Between the Jews and Our Byzantine Church they produced a hostile, conquering religion  – but it failed, as a political religion, and devolved first into a competing religion (catholicism), then to a conspiratorial religion (Protestantism) and is currently devolving into a folk religion under American evangelical Protestantism – a ‘faith’ rather than an organized religion.

The next step in the evolution of, and restoration of our religion is to i) eradicate hostile competing religions, i) divide Christianity into faithful(supernatural) feminine, traditional (rational), and empirical (scientific) factions, and then iii) to restore our ancestral (masculine) hero-worship (thanks) by feasts, and festivals, monuments, and temples,  which will over time, on their own organic incentives, evolve into a restorative religion of our people (nation and races), completing our recovery from Alexander’s Curse, of crossing the Bosphorus and bringing oriental monopoly, authority, and deceit into western markets, meritocracy, and truth.

Our religion, like our civilization, is in the process of transformation and rebirth just when our ancient enemy has brought us an innovative pseudoscientific sophomoric and denialist, secular theology in the forms of Jewish Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, while also giving license to an unreformed absolutist superstitious sophomoric, consumptive, dysgenic religion – Semitic Islam.


The Faustian Spirit: (German Legend ~1400?)

A literary allusion to the western predilection for experiment, change, and achievement. Again, this tells us almost nothing about causality, only the description of a few values.

Aryanism: (19th Century)

Associating the name of set of tribes with their strategy, telling us nothing about the constitution of their strategy.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism: (Duchesne ~2010)

A descriptive title of a military and political strategy that states that distributed rule of peers can scale by opening the franchise for participation in rule, and its benefits (property and commissions/taxes) is open to all who will pay for it by demonstrating merit in family, industry, and war. (compare to the Chinese method of entering the bureaucracy through examination and the consequences thereof)

Aryanism as Markets for Rule: (Duchesne)

A descriptive insight expanding upon Aristocratic Egalitarianism, by adding that aryanism spread through the construction of markets for polities. 

Sovereignty. (Doolittle)

A causal description. Since by the demand for sovereignty one can only scale through aristocratic egalitarianism, and one is limited to the resolution of conflicts by natural law of reciprocity, meaning that all association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities must be achieved through sovereign, productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. And By the combination of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, the need to scale, the provision of scale through the selection for agency, and thereby the incremental domestication of man, transcends man through imitation of sovereignty, reward for agency and sovereignty, and the deprivation and diminution of those who lack agency, cannot act in sovereign fashion, and therefore cannot cooperate via markets, and therefore cannot participate in rule.

And that is the CAUSE of western civilization.

For a militia of voluntary warriors, desirous of preservation of their sovereignty, Sovereignty is the only political solution, leading to natural law and markets in everything.


Political Economy

( … mixed economy)



I advocate universal nationalism. Why? Because natural law judges it as the only not-immoral means of cooperation. But that doesn’t tell you much.

Instead, I advocate universal nationalism because under it, “all men are distant relations cooperating to raise their people by the production of commons information, goods, and services, best suited to doing so despite our differences in rate of development bias in temperament and bias in the distribution of abilities.”

And if we construct states as extensions of the family, household, clan, tribe, and nation, we have elites who serve the interests of their people on their terms, and the smallest proximity-to-influence-and power that is possible.

And we ameliorate our differences not through politics, power, and commons, but through trade of information, goods, and services. I

if we do otherwise, under globalism, we put those people into competition, where there is one small global elite with interest in one another, and with a powerless host of common people suffering their rule.

So there is no system of rule superior to universal nationalism, with tolerance for migration of elites for trade purposes – but prohibiting them from local political enfranchise and social involvement and public speech.”–

Universal Ethnocentrism

  1. The optimum group strategy is ethnocentrism.
  2. The optimum political strategy is political ethnocentrism.
  3. The optimum economic strategy is intolerance for competition against ethnocentricity,
  4. The optimum legal strategy is rule of law (reciprocity) that enforces non defection against ethnocentrism by a prohibition on internalization of costs and externalization of returns.(Socialization of costs, and privatization of commons).

As far as I know, it is impossible to find evidence or argue logically, otherwise.

Everything else is a justification for parasitism by the commercial complex, religious-academy complex, or the state-tax complex.

The left violates every one of those principles in order to dismantle meritocracy and ethnocentrism and to reduce us to socialist poverty – the poverty that ethnocentrism and rule of law evolved to raise us out of.

This is the problem with the American Model of a Purely Market Society: without ethnocentrism, it is simply suicidal, since, without limitations, the commercial, religious-academic, and state-tax-bureaucracy are incentivized to destroy the host population. (And therefore they do).

The Returns on Ethnocentrism are multiples of every other possible strategy. Just how it is.

The Secret of Western Civilization


The West – Adaptive Velocity

The secret to western civilization, being a small, relatively poor population on the edge of the bronze age, is that by the choice of voluntary militia, military tactics of maneuver requiring contractualism, and heroic sovereignty (ownership of gains), we necessitated natural law, and markets in everything. And as a consequence the west was not first, but in every era we were fastest. In other words, truth, promise(contract), natural law, and jury allow us to adapt faster than every other known method of human cooperation.

European Strategy is:

… by the combination of:

… leaving the only possible rules of cooperation as:

… resulting in:


|EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY| Transcendence > Innovation > Heroism(Risk) > Sovereignty >  Truth, > Duty > Reciprocity > Natural Law > Markets in Everything > The Most Rapid Adaptation Possible > The best evolutionary strategy possible – if you have the demographics for it.


|MARKETS IN EVERYTHIG| Association > Cooperation > Production > Reproduction > Commons > Classes > Elites > Grammars > Polities > Group Strategy


(Enumerate and define Each Property Above Here, in conversational form)


(Enumerate markets in everything here)

Tripartism and Tripartism Extended: The Market Between The Classes


Generation One

1 “THOSE WHO FIGHT” (Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs) Those Who Enforce The Natural Law
2 “THOSE WHO PRAY” (Academy) Those Who Teach The Natural and Physical Laws
3 “THOSE WHO LABOR” (Lower middle, Working, Laboring) Those Who Labor Under The Natural and Physical Laws

Generation Two – Modernity

1 – “THOSE WHO FIGHT” (Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs) Those Who Enforce The Natural Law
2 – “THOSE WHO PRAY” (Academy) Those Who Teach The Natural and Physical Laws
3 – “THOSE WHO ORGANIZE” (Middle Class) Those Who Organize Those Who Labor Under the Natural and Physical laws
4 – “THOSE WHO LABOR” (Lower middle, Working, Laboring) Those Who Labor Under The Natural and Physical Laws

Generation Three – 20th Century

1 – “THOSE WHO FIGHT” (Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs) Those Who Enforce The Natural Law
2 – “THOSE WHO PRAY” (Academy, Media) Those Who Teach The Natural and Physical Laws
3 – “THOSE WHO ORGANIZE” (Middle Class) Those Who Organize Those Who Labor Under the Natural and Physical laws
4 – “THOSE WHO LABOR” (Lower middle, Working, Laboring) Those Who Labor Under The Natural and Physical Laws
5 – “THOSE WHO BIRTH” Those Who Labor To Birth and Care Under the Natural and Physical Laws.


The Culture that Suppresses Free-Riding

In economic terms, a discount, is any reduction that you can obtain from the full cost of something under perfect circumstances. This may seem like a confusing terminology, but in economics, the terminology developed for discussing commodities and commodity prices. Commodities are defined where only price determines the difference between one unit and another. Objects that are not commodities, say are used cars. Unless you have a complete video record of the history of the vehicle, it’s not possible to really know what you’re buying and the seller is in a similar position. Horses are even worse since they cannot easily be ‘repaired’. Stolen goods are something yet again. You can buy something very cheaply but that discount comes at a price. Lying is another way to get a discount in an exchange. So a discount is anything you can do or apply to modify a price where you are fully informed and there is no marginal difference between units because you are fully informed.

The ANF North Sea social model, is a moral strategy, for the TOTAL SUPPRESSION of ALL DISCOUNTS thereby forcing all individuals into the market and suppressing the reproduction of those that cannot compete in it.

Those discounts, in economic terms are:

1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
3. Fraud (false information)
4. Omission (Omitting information)
5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. War (organized violence)

The North Sea (Protestant) model suppresses ALL of these, including the ability to seek support from one’s family. It is a unique moral code.

The moral code consists in:

1. Requirement for Individual Sovereignty
2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange
3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth
4. Requirement for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth)
5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of Due Diligence
6. Requirement for proof of work (you must add value to a thing to profit from it.)
7. Prohibition on familial, tribal, and political free riding and rents.
8. Right of exclusion (boycott, and ostracization)

Sovereignty: perfect (exceptionless) reciprocity by perfect (exceptionless) reciprocal insurance, in numbers sufficient to deny violations of reciprocity to all possible (exceptionless) extant numbers.

Perfect Reciprocity: limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property – in – toto, limited to productive externalities.

Demonstrated Interest: ergo, leaving only homesteading, transformation, and exchange, as a means of obtaining an interest. Synonym: monopoly share (a possession), proportional share (citizenship in a commons), proportional share (private in a common contract), demonstrated share ( a denial of opportunity( such as norms and traditions)

Property in Toto: That in which one has expended any resource with intent to obtain an interest, without imposing a cost on that which another has expended a resource with the intent to obtain an interest. Synonym: ‘demonstrated property’

Resource: life, body, effort, time, attention, kin, material possession, material interest (share), organizational interest, normative interest, institutional interest, informational interest. Synonym: “capital”.


Possession(insured by self defense) > consensual property (insured by reciprocity) > normative property(insured by normative enforcement) > property right (insured by third party enforcement) > natural right(ideal between government and citizens) or human right(ideal between governments). Technically speaking, under rule of law, under natural judge-discovered common law, under perfect reciprocity (sovereignty), natural rights can be brought into existence.

Under these conditions it is possible to create sovereignty-in-fact, liberty-by-permission, freedom-by-utility, and subsidy-by-preference.

The Dirty Secret of Western Civilization


Yamnaya Expansion

Scandinavian living conditions

Anglo Saxon Law


Medieval corporatism

English Revolution

Oppression Myth

You were not oppressed.

You were domesticated.

Soft Eugenics

—How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— S.

Because eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties.

1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism)
2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism).
3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics).

The first is simply non-logical and immoral.
The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable
The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable.

Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do, and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportionately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism.

Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males.

So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters.

Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work-sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males.

Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgment.

A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high-cost maintenance to reach minimum self-sufficiency, and twice that for maturity.

But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peer’s children but to anything that she can imagine.


Specializing In The Production Of Commons


( ………. )

easier to rule idiots En masse. better to raise talent in small numbers.

The European Version of High Investment Parenting: The Polity

( … ) jews vs Europeans vs Muslims vs Hindus vs Chinese

what is our high investment parenting? FOR RETURNS ON COMMONS

Civilizational Production of Agency


Aristocracy: the production of Agency (peers) by the incremental suppression of parasitism, by the use of the common law, leaving no option for survival but market production: the civilization-wide industrialization of the domestication of the animal man, for fun and profit.

Definition: Agency

Agency is 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, omnipotence, and complete insulation from impulse.

As an example, God would have perfect agency, because would have perfect knowledge(omniscience), perfect reason, perfect emotions, perfect mindfulness, perfect ability to act (omnipotence), unlimited resources, and no competition, no need to cooperate, and therefore no need for conventions, laws, institutions, or infrastructure.

As humans we have imperfect knowledge, imperfect reason, imperfect mindfulness, imperfect emotions, limited range of actions, limited resources, and we live in a world where we must compete, must cooperate to compete, and to do so require conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure.

So, Agency consists of the degree to which one approaches perfect ability to act, when not limited by knowledge, reason, emotions, mindfulness, range of action, available instrumentation, available resources, competition, cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions and infrastructure.

Given we can never have unlimited knowledge, unlimited resources, and we have limited ability to be free of competition, need for cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure, we can seek largely to improve our knowledge, reason, mindfulness, and assets so that we maximize our agency within the available limits.


Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to agency – and agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy.

Agency = Potential Energy
Agency = potential energy (PE)
Force = applied energy (F)
Event = Impulse (Imp), [force vector + temporal dimension]
Consequence = displacement vector (s)
Action = work (W)
Externalities = Waste heat (h)
W = F * s.


Scale of Demonstrated [& Permitted] Agency*
... ... ... ... ... (0) Sovereign (Aristocracy)(Peerage)
... ... ... ... (1) Vassal (Nobility)
... ... ... (2) Tradesman (Burgher) 
... ... (3) Craftsman (Freeman) 
... (4) Laborer (Serf)
(5) Dependent (Slave)

(by Ferdinand Pisaro)

*With an increase in agency (demonstrated by the scale that an agent can act in) an agent rises through the spectrum of classes. And as an agent gains status the scope of his action increases because he has demonstrated to his peers that he posses the agency to act at his respective scale without producing negative externalities.


Retaliation against impositions upon that in which an agent has invested (paid a cost).
As an agent rises in the spectrum of demonstrated-agency, the portfolio of his property increases, and so to the permitted defense he can field.

The cost of Peerage/Sovereignty is paid by a deposit of violence and the granting of reciprocal insurance against impositions of cost upon property-en-toto. Complete-Peerage requires perfect reciprocity, including the requirement for symmetrical information. Thus dispute-resolution between peers requires warrantied, truthful testimony—that is, decidability in dispute resolution amongst peers requires the construction of judicial defense.

Aristocracy limits the self-defense of non and semi-peers to the scale merited by the agent’s respective scope of action and thus property.

Thusly, just an agent moves from:

slave > serf >freeman > burgher > vassal > sovereign 

…he is permitted to engage in self-defense from:

none > body > body & parcel (home)> body & productive capital > 
body & territorial capital (fiefdom) > body & polity.

And as we decrease in scale, legal decidability is provided by the proportional immediacy of the risk/threat/cost posed to body & property.

Extending beyond one’s permission to defend property in a manner proportional to scale is met with (judicial) retaliation. So those granted limited self-defense, by permission of the sovereign, must do so under the conditions deemed appropriate by the sovereign.

And since retaliation-cycles decrease the value of the sovereigns holdings, the sovereign has an incentive to suppress the cost imposed on his holdings by requiring that disputes be settled by jurors (peers) & judge.

Western Civilization Is a Technology and An Industry

–”Western Civilization’s Aristocracy, or ‘Aristocratic Egalitarianism”, is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a government – it is a technology and an INDUSTRY. And it is by use of this industry we have profited by dragging the beast-man out of his parasitic past on the margins of nature – out of ignorance, mysticism, poverty, starvation, disease, labor, and suffering, and into the transcendent mastery of himself, nature, and increasingly, the universe. We domesticated the animal man for profit. It is our chief industry. It always has been. And the ungrateful have resisted us in every era. They prefer to feed on our productions, commons, institutions, and inventions, but not suffer our domestication in exchange..–


[] = Agency: The postmodern, feminist marxist definition places no responsibility on the individual, and entirely upon others. “The Capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices subject to personal or external limitations. By contrast, *structure* refers to those factors that determine or limit an individual and his or her decisions, such as gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, customs, education, economic institutions, government, propaganda, ability, knowledge, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Meaning that one’s agency is determined by the combination of beneficial institutions, abilities, and knowledge and inhibiting institutions, abilities, and knowledge.”



European Racial Differences

European white subrace is DEMOGRAPHICALLY superior, and because it is demographically superior, it is institutionally and culturally superior, which is why it’s economically technologically and militarily superior. That’s because the single best thing you can do to advance your population is shrinking your working, lower, and underclass populations such that the median ability of individuals per calorie of production per capita allows the highest investment in individuals while preserving the rate of return. (a mouthful but it’s not that complicated.)

Whether White Europeans are genetically superior is questionable. Of the SUBRACES, only Han/Korean/Japanese, and White Europeans have succeeded in (a) reducing the size of the underclass, and (b) reduced the rate and depth of sexual maturity. The Ashkenazi have in addition, (c) reversed sexual dimorphism which has proven an interesting and novel strategy.

But this domestication of the human-animal has had consequences. The East Asians have been the most successful at limiting sexual maturity, and may, in fact, have surpassed the benefit of doing so, but they have gained longer lifespans and somewhat superior health because of it. They appear to have superior memories in addition which accounts for their academic performance. Unfortunately, they have culturally selected for intolerance for challenges to the status hierarchy (preferring stagnation).

The Europeans have transferred female morphological traits to males but maintained high sexual dimorphism despite lower levels of testosterone than all but East Asians.

The Ashkenazi have transferred female superiority in verbal expression to males, at the expense of the consequences of transferring other normatively female traits to males such as a much higher incidence of homosexuality. They have selected for disruption of the host population’s dominance hierarchy while retaining the use of the female preference for internal equality. Effectively the Ashkenazi have adopted the female reproductive strategy and it appears they have genetically adapted to it as well. (Studying their use of this strategy has been interesting in that it illustrates the range of what is possible through selective expression of gender traits.)

The rest of the world populations have been unable to reduce the scale of their working, lower, and underclasses sufficiently to lower demographic resistance to improving their institutions both formal and informal – particularly improving their higher incidences of corruption. Moreover, some information systems and some ideas prohibit the improvement of knowledge just as the lower and working classes inhibit the improvement of formal and informal institutions. So once we have analyzed the successes of the European, Ashkenazi, and East Asian populations we are left with the same problem for everyone else: demographic distribution is so heavy on the bottom that the top cannot develop a means of organizing society using incentives (cheap) rather than force (expensive) to produce goods, services, and information necessary to raise them out of ignorance, superstition, and poverty.

The reason for European white sub-races success in the ancient and modern world was made possible by rather obvious factors:

1 – the location between the steppe which provided the horse, Europe which provided the wheel, and the Armenians who provided bronze technology. The mobility provided by the combination of these technologies made it possible to replace the European population almost entirely as it moved westward. And to conquer the older peoples as they moved eastward and southward. Encountering the older peoples, they preferred to rule then integrate with them, and have largely disappeared as other than genetic contributors.

2 – Farming on the European plain is reasonably fruitful given the growing season but ruling it more difficult than the concentration of production in river valleys and it’s longer growing seasons. Even if less difficult than the near impossibility of ruling the steppe and desert pastoral people for whom fixed capital is nearly impossible to hold, and therefore threaten, rule, and tax. So where the fertile crescent, North Indian, and Chinese river valley civilizations could develop through central control of production, and extraction of rents. And where they could count on trade routes across the warmer parts of the globe, Europeans could not so easily concentrate capital without seafaring. And steppe and desert people could not do so at all. This is why these civilizations developed in order.

3 – The European winters that are harsh enough that those lacking sufficient physical, emotional, intellectual, and reproductive desirability cannot survive the vicissitudes of nature. And conversely, whereas people in warm climates benefit from rapid maturity in order to survive disease gradients, people in cold climates benefit from slower maturity in order to invest in higher discipline and industriousness. So for all intents and purposes those people who lack industriousness in northern climes could not survive, and those people in equatorial climes required early maturity to survive.

4 – Both East Asians (Han, Korean, Chinese) and Europeans (Atlantics, Celts, Germanics, Scandinavians, Baltics, Slavs, Southern Slavs, ) were successful because of lack of neighboring competitors. Everyone left in Europe after the Aryan migration was kin or near kin. The Chinese had their civil wars early and solidified control of the strip of green along the pacific. This condition selected for lower clannishness.

However, in the middle east, European forest, river, and sea people, Levantine sea and desert people, indo-Iranian and their MANY offshoots across the middle east, central Asia and North Africa, and the Semitic people’s of inland and peninsula as well as sub-Saharan Africans all competed and developed extraordinary clannishness.

And worse, since the steppe and desert people, always behind, always lacking capital, always mobile, and always the world’s terrorist underclass, disrupted the east, west, and south until the Byzantines and the Persians had exhausted themselves, and they were caught by the desert expansion of the Arabs from the south.

5 – This clannishness or lack of it, number of non-kin neighbors, rate and depth of sexual maturity, balance of sexual dimorphism, and scale of the underclass, as well as the traditions necessary to form political orders in the concentrated river (great/Fertile Crescent), distributed forest and rivers(good/east and west), and fragmentary steppe and desert (bad/north and south), or the inability to participate in Eurasian trade routes (sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Americas) describes the primary reason for empirical consequences of racial differences, caused largely by demographic adaptation to regional demands.

6 – However, east, center, and west, developed three very different intellectual traditions.

The east developed ritualism, observation, and reason. Not religion as we understand it. Not science, logic, or rationalism as we understand it, not necessarily philosophy as we understand it, but observation, reason, accounting, and many technologies. They developed a society largely a literature of reason.

The aristocratic center developed Zoroastrianism, which we can call religious literary tradition, and relied upon that as their philosophical framework. This decision was to have profound consequences. They developed the conflation of supernatural religion and philosophy as their literature.

The slaves (jews) conflated supernatural and philosophical literature, with their law and history, and developed authoritarian supernatural mysticism – beginning with Abrahamism which split into Judaism ( middle class administrative), Christianity (working-class Levantine and roman), and Islam (underclass steppe and desert). religions. This decision was to have profound consequences. Because of Islam for the past 1400 years, and Judaism in the form of Marxism/Communism, Abrahamism has been second only to the black plague in accumulated deaths throughout all of history. (really).

The west retained paganism, rather than ritualism, or monotheism, and partly, for this reason, they practiced deflation in every discipline. Meaning that religion, holidays, festivals, philosophy, politics, and law, were separate disciplines. And meaning that governments were merely collections of noble families negotiating their common interests, with a leader generally chosen as headman, chieftain, or king.

So in the west, quite by accident, the debate between equals, evolved into common law, the method of argument into reason, and reason into philosophy and philosophy into science. And the reason this was possible was because the military aristocracy cooperated contractually – voluntarily – for the common good, and enfranchised men into the military to increase their numbers, and indoctrinating them into the western way of war.

The western way of war required maneuver, and contract, between nobility and their followers. And soldiers learned to ‘report’ or ‘testify’ – reporting empirically without color, loading, of framing – or men die. In other words, westerners discovered what we call empirical (meaning observable) truth and institutionalized it. And instead of ‘truth’ being a threat to the existing arbitrary dominance hierarchy, truth was a respectable means of climbing the dominance hierarchy. So between deflationary institutions, argumentative reason, contractualism, common law, jury, testimony, and the value of truthful speech, the west was able to adapt, innovate, faster than the rest of the surrounding civilizations despite inferior numbers, being poorer, and being on the remote edge of the far more mature bronze-age civilizations.

The Justinian Plague and the Arab Conquest of the Mediterranean, and generations of piracy, raids, and slave trading of Europe by the Muslims caused the dark ages, more so than the germanics who wanted to join the empire. But despite the failures of the Merovingians and the franks, by the 700’s the north sea peoples had started to develop a sufficient trade system to create enough wealth to lose their dependence upon overland trade with the Mediterranean. So by 700’s we see bipartite manorialism which results in the near-total replacement of the underclass by downwardly mobile members of the genetic middle class. By the high middle ages we see the development of academies and consistent trade routes. Then the import of greek and roman thought as persecuted intellectuals fled the Arab conquest of the Byzantines. And by the late middle ages, the Hansa (germanic north sea) civilization would develop, above the Hajnal line, creating what we call ‘the puritan ethic’ and the ‘absolute nuclear family’ and ‘government by rule of law’; rule without rulers.

That’s really the answer. Westerners discovered deflationary truth, which allowed them to adapt to change faster, and they succeeded as did the Chinese in aggressive killing off of the underclass through manorialism, hanging 1% of the population per year, plagues, winter starvation, and war. In other words, it’s not that western peoples are better. It’s that the people who were not good in the west are nearly gone.

Why Are Most White People Richer Than Non-whites?

Greater success at reproductive juvenilization. We are not sure why other than that slowing the rate of maturity is possible in colder climates, whereas accelerating the rate of maturity in warmer clients is necessary for no other reason than to survive the higher incidence of disease, parasites, and predators.

Greater success at aggressive culling the size of the underclasses. While it is impolitic to say so, the wealth or poverty of a people is more dependent upon the reduction and elimination of the underclasses than it is upon the production of exceptional people and education. A good rule of thumb is that every person at the bottom is six times as costly as every person at the top is productive.

Greater success at eliminating the clannishness impulse. Again, we are not sure if this is an artifact of low population density and cold climates, or purely one of cultural forces influence reproductive choice. In either event, white people (to their detriment) are less tribal and clannish.

For reasons we are just beginning to understand, the west made very different cultural choices. (a) telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as highest virtue, despite any impact it would have on the dominance hierarchy. (b) Sovereignty and Markets in Everything creating a market for polities, and polities led by markets, rather than monopolistic hierarchies. As a consequence a division of the state into different institutions that competed with one another. This led to deflationary literature where the rest of the world relied on conflationary literature. (c) that the gods, like men, are subject to the laws of the natural universe, and that man can defeat the folly of these gods with cunning and effort.

So white people are more trusting, more trustworthy, and have institutions that depend upon more trusting, more trustworthy people, and together these reduce the frictions that constrain non-white peoples to lesser conditions. The only people close to whites are the Japanese and South Koreans. And even among whites, these rules apply only to whites from above the Hajnal Line (protestants and their descendants) who practiced Bipartite Manorialism.

Is There A Case for White Supremacy?

If somehow acknowledging racial differences is ‘racism’ then no because you can’t even ask the question, and so you can’t answer it either

If ‘racism’ refers to treating an individual by the average properties of his race then that is a legitimate criticism of illogical behavior.

If ‘racism’ refers to criticism of the reproductive, cultural, political strategies of a competing group, rather than criticism of one’s inability to defend against the harm caused you by that group, then that’s illogical also.

If ‘racism’ refers to a preference for nationalism or separatism in order to reduce conflicts between groups and improve the conditions of either by creating norms and institutions more suitable for each group’s differing wants and needs, then criticizing that is not rational.

White ‘supremacy’ in ‘achievement’ nearly every field is simply a fact – although the reason for white success is the high cost of truth even if it may disrupt the dominance hierarchy, and therefore resulting in reason, debate, argument, common law, science, medicine, engineering, technology, etc.

White genetic supremacy does not appear correct. all racial groups both evolved in different geographical conditions and in doing so produced different levels of neoteny. With Asians most, whites next, mixed colors next, and blacks last. The reason being that whites and Asians have been in homogenous groups for a long time, under agrarianism and have succeeded at selecting for neoteny. And secondly, because of the pressures of agrarianism and the winter seasons, the Asians and Western Europeans have more successfully reduced the sizes of the ‘troublesome’ (underclass) population leaving almost the entire population descendent from the genetic middle class. Every other race and subrace has dominated warmer climates where the rate of maturity as a means of surviving a higher disease gradient requires earlier maturity and deeper maturity and therefore limited selection for neoteny.

The superiority of Europeans appears to be the result of a rather small set of noble families never exceeding a few hundred thousand in total population combined with a middle-class majority population who expanded downward.

So because Europeans and Asians lived in homogenous groups that were somewhat insulated from sunbelt density of diverse and nomadic pastoral peoples, they were able to genetically select (not so much evolve) for superior populations. The differences between China and Europe are – largely – that china started earlier. The Muslims were not able to cause a thousand-year dark age in china like they were in Europe by collapsing the four major ancient civilizations and reducing them to sub 85IQ averages. But the west is faster than china in both the ancient and modern worlds because of its institutions of ‘truthfulness’ instead of ‘face-saving’, which allowed the west to advance more quickly in both ancient and modern eras.

The Failure of Equatorial States

Why are so many equatorial nations ‘Failed States’? “All happy families are the same. All unhappy families are different.” This means that a lot of things go into making a successful state, and there are a number of reasons why successfully advanced cultures develop. And if any one of them goes wrong, a state can fail. Although it will most likely be conquered once it has failed.

And there is one particular reason why most of the failed states are currently failing: the legacy of colonialism.

But let’s look at the reasons why cultures progress differently:

1) disease gradients are higher (safer) in the cold and lower in the warm.

2) physical effort is difficult in hot weather, which hampers the creation of built capital. (Core body temp also affects IQ during exertion)

3) Agrarian cycles in the north encourage cottage industry in winter, farming in spring and fall and war in summer. This creates certain social orders that foster human, built and technical capital accumulation. Compare to the brutal survival farming of the Chinese and their rice.

4) Rivers and sea: rivers, in particular, provide safe, easy and low-cost product transport. The opposite is true: some areas are simply geographically resistant to trade. Europe is gifted with east-west rivers.

5) Unequal distribution of terrain, water, useful plants, and animals favors certain regions in agrarian productivity. Mineral deposits favor certain technologies (Europe, coal, wood, and iron.)

6) Access to trade means access to knowledge and greater availability of resources and technology. This increases the probability of innovation, and the development of ‘virtues’ as we understand our commercial and moral code.

7) The abstract thing we refer to as social order, that is embodied in accumulated traditions and habits, are the most important and expensive forms of human capital. These habits facilitate the unspoken normative goals of all social and economic cooperation and coordination. We pay for social institutions by forgoing opportunity: the set of things that we don’t do: the opportunities we do not seize. We pay for infrastructure and governance with the results of trade made possible by those forgone opportunities. These institutions include our different definitions of public and private property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. Manners, ethics and morals are economic codes just as are written laws, most of which, in all of human history, proscribed punishments for violations of manners, ethics and morals. (A vast oversimplification, but an informative one.)

8) The availability of general technical knowledge (how to craft things) and general systemic knowledge (how the natural world operates). We often confuse education with practical knowledge and scientific knowledge. ( The Muslim world is full of Islamic studies which do nothing except perpetuate ignorance. Some of the sub-Saharan world is still in the embrace of magical thinking.) Commercial apprenticeship and on the job learning, not education, (imitation of practice) is the primary means of knowledge transfer. Most knowledge (in the USA as well) is political or secular-theocratic rather than useful knowledge. This is the reason for the comparative ignorance of our working classes compared to that of Europeans.

9) Concordant technologies. Civilizations need to accumulate a great deal of human capital by adopting certain technologies before they can adopt others, else these technologies are not disruptive, and do not increase the division of knowledge and labor. Otherwise tyrants simply use it to institutionalize corruption and profiteering. This isn’t any different from children but on a larger scale. If people do not forgo the opportunity to misuse technology, they will never be able to gain its productive benefits. You don’t give a child a gun.

10) social orders. The west was built by fraternal orders of city/market joint stockholders, partly because of the high cost of equipment and training. This is the source of our republican sentiments, as well as our tools of argument, reason, and science. Other societies have not been so lucky. East Asia is largely historically oriented. The northern-west is largely future-oriented, the greek, Greco (southern) Italian and eastern block Mediterranean is largely present-oriented, and the near east and Indian continent are magically (‘spiritually’) oriented. Social classes have different time preferences, with the highest classes most future-oriented, and the lowest classes most present-oriented.

11) Political Institutions: what we call ‘rule of law’ is probably the most important for a market economy – because it permits creative disruption and speculation. But more importantly, it requires the ability to concentrate enough power that the political elite can suppress violence in a geography well enough that people can accumulate capital and trade can develop. If trade can develop productivity can increase, and eventually enough extra production can develop that there is something to redistribute to people, first for the purpose of increasing their productivity and second for increasing the quality of their lives. We avoid discussing the reality of violence, but without the ability to project violence there is no ‘state’. Because that’s what a state is: a territorial monopoly on violence that forces people to use either the market (good) or to become the victims of exploitative totalitarianism (bad).

Now we get to how westerners condemned some cultures:

1) Creating political boundaries and political systems across tribes destroys their ability to create human capital because this uncertainty over-stimulates the need for group persistence and impedes the development of market-friendly habits. Thievery and tribal banditry is much easier and cheaper than creating trade and infrastructure. Even today, there is no small sentiment among males that suggests civilization has limited their potential access to mates, and their potential joy, by suppressing their desire for tribal banditry. In certain areas of the globe (in which the USA is fighting) tribal banditry is the primary means of status achievement. And the alternative is the grinding poverty of subsistence farming in an arid landscape. Progress is not always as desirable as it may seem.

2) Colonialism under England was effective in creating stability. In fact, the hallmark of the Anglo model is stability. In the entire anglo civilization. In the anglo colonies as well. Stability fosters the accumulation of all forms of capital. If you were colonized by someone else, then you will suffer for it. If you were colonized by the french in particular you will have suffered for it. Anglo social technology is as important as the development of Greek science and reason. That technology, unbeknownst to most of us, is the development of abstract principles that allow calculation and coordination. (Even law is a form of mathematics or calculation. This is a very complex topic for this forum so I’ll leave it at that.). French colonies are a disaster. In fact, the unspoken question is, why were some cultures able to be colonized? It was possible to do terrible things to China via trade, but not to colonize it. And while even the Japanese conquered China, they could not hold or colonize it.

3) Economic interference, and in particular interference by way of charity. This is a hotly debated problem. But individual and local assistance by devoted people seems to make a difference, while insertion of capital is extremely harmful to developing economies that must transform from tribal to market economies. Why we understand that socialism is devastating to economies yet we interfere with primitive and less flexible economies with much less capital, is a mystery of western behavior.

Unpleasant realities :

1) Mystical Religion: Unfortunately, there are also ways to manufacture ignorance. Some religions are regressive. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that many are simply dangerous. Some have argued that they all are dangerous. The reason one is outgunned out germed and out steeled, so to speak, is a function of a culture’s willingness to adopt disruptive technologies. Luddites perish. Most of the scriptural religions are Luddite systems of thought.

2) The Problem Of Intelligence: Despite the objections of the inequality-deniers, the one factual reality that the vast body of people will fail to accept in the face of overwhelming objective scientific evidence: that IQ’s are unequally distributed in different races — and in classes within those races.

3) The Problem of Status and Racism: All people are racist in that they prefer acting within and with their race. And this will never change simply because of man’s need to learn, his learning by imitation, and his desire to learn from those he most easily can imitate, and his need to identify WHO to imitate. And the consequential need for visible evidence of status in order to choose who to imitate. Status is a necessary epistemological property of human existence. We cannot exist without it.

4) Mate Selection: The hard reality is that women are hypergamous (marry up). This reality is made more complex because men have a wider IQ variance than women, who are more centered around the mean. This situation presents men with the need to compete for mate selection, while women are increasingly selective about their mates until they reach a point of either opportunity or resignation. (ie: more women are forced to ‘settle’ than are men.) Furthermore, this status economy requires a diverse range of status symbols within each race and class that inform the eternal search for demonstrable differences in status. Furthermore, this means that within races and within classes, except at the margins, greater status is available WITHIN race than without, and therefore people are incentivized to prefer to act and associate within their races.

Racism is as permanent as is classism. The dirty secret of the human genome project is that class is genetically determinant. While economic classes are semi-randomly plastic, social classes (which are readily evidenced in the postings on this and other blogs) are decidedly inelastic. (spoken as a member of the upper-middle class).

Furthermore, IQs are different in consequence between groups. A white, Jew or east Asian with a 60 IQ is perceptibly broken. A sub-Saharan African is not – he or she just has a higher barrier to the learning of abstractions. But otherwise is perceptibly healthy.

And IQ distributions affect what can be invented, what can be produced, and what can be maintained in a society. In general, Maintaining machines requires an IQ of at least 105. To get a liberal education requires an IQ of 110. To design machines requires an IQ of at least 122 . To design abstractions requires an IQ above 130. To innovate upon a system of thought requires, it appears, an IQ above 140. Everyone else simply uses the tools created by others. It is demonstrably true that the top quintile has more influence on productivity of the society than all the rest combined. And it is the number of people with these IQ’s in the population who are educated enough to employ them, in a society with sufficient capital and division of knowledge and labor to make use of their talents. (For this reason, a capitalist China should rule the world in productivity simply because they have so many people above the mechanical threshold, and so much of the population can participate in complex production.)

Since all societies are run by minority elites (even ours) the composition of elites in government, speculative intelligence, and innovation in the middle classes, and capable mechanics in the proletariat determine the competitive rates of innovation and change in society.

Despite Racial, national, and class differences in IQ distribution, it does not take a genius to run a market economy. As our politicians demonstrate daily. What is important is that in any sufficiently large body of people exist sufficient numbers to adopt the rule of law, the institutions of trade, and some form of capital production. The problem is one of numbers: getting the barbarians and potential corrupt bureaucrats to forgo opportunities for personal gain in order to fund the development of their human capital. The problem of coordinating production in a division of knowledge and labor requires a great deal of sacrifice.

It is a sufficient set of principles for governing the progress and adaptability of cultures.

As other readers have commented, colonialism is perhaps the greatest determinant today of the relative state of failed nations.

I hope this was helpful in providing food for thought.

White Privilege (GSRRM)

Harman and Doolittle on The Economics of White Privilege


White Privilege is a misnomer for White Warranty. The individual and collectively the group warrants a standard of behavior and mores. Self-enforcement and punishment ensue as the group wants to maintain that Warranty.

The Cost of White Privilege

White privilege is real. I didn’t earn mine. But I pay to maintain it so that I may pass it on to the next generation as it was passed on to me. Any privilege can be abused. So, for example, every time I go into a store and am not followed around by security, I am given the opportunity to steal. Forgoing those opportunities is the opportunity cost that maintaining such privileges for myself and for others like me requires. Privilege is a commons. White people have privilege because white people can create and maintain commons. Some other peoples cannot.

The Origins of White Privilege

“White privilege,” and its precursor, “racism” have been used as weapons to create a burden of debt on white people and a claim of entitlement for non-white people.

That constitutes a real non-white privilege extracted from white people through systemic anti-white racism. Whites are amply warranted, therefore, in shrugging off the non-white burden and, should any be allowed to remain, educating them about the privilege they enjoy on account of complicity with systematic, institutional, fraud, aggression, demoralization, manipulation, and culture war directed against whites, for which they must be suitably and perpetually contrite and penitent, and all the benefits they have enjoyed at white people’s expense but have not previously been made to reciprocate, and for which they now owe restitution.

The Economics of White Privilege

Critics note that white privilege is unearned & conclude that it is therefore undeserved. But I have to pay for my white privilege, when it is extended to me, by not abusing it. E.g. if I’m not followed around by security, I’m being given an opportunity to steal.

To maintain my white privilege of not being followed by security, for myself and others, I have to pay the opportunity cost of foregoing opportunities to steal. Evidence suggests that enough white people are willing to pay for this privilege, in this way, to maintain it.

Some groups aren’t willing to forego opportunities to steal reliably enough to make the privilege of not being followed around by security worth giving them. By whining about white people getting this privilege (saying it’s unfair) they’re trying to obtain it at a discount.

The demand is basically that whites conduct all business and interactions with non-whites on ingroup terms. But this is not worthwhile if they are not ingroup, and won’t treat us as ingroup, by the standards we demand of ingroup members. It’s a parasitic demand.

The only other way to be uniform and “fair” (as these parasites define fairness) would be to conduct business & interactions w/everyone (even fellow whites) on low trust, out-group terms (have security follow everyone) but this is not optimal. It’s costlier for ingroup members.

I didn’t “earn” my white privilege. But I do pay for it, every time I am extended it and don’t abuse it, such as when I am not followed by security and nevertheless refrain from stealing. Payment of those opportunity costs is what maintains that privilege for myself and others.

Are all whites trustworthy and all non-whites untrustworthy? Certainly not. But it certainly pays to employ different risk management strategies with different groups, according to the risks, statistically, that they present. Accordingly, different out-groups get different terms.

Asians get better out-group terms in white societies than blacks, & whites get better out-group terms in Asian societies than blacks, even if none get ingroup terms because whites and Asians are lower risk and higher benefit, relative to blacks. It’s not just ingroup/out-group.

There are 2 kinds of blacks who object to being mistrusted, the untrustworthy, b/c it makes it harder to abuse trust, & the trustworthy, for whom it’s costly & embarrassing to be lumped w/the former. But if we can’t tell the difference, demanding not to be lumped is unreasonable.

There are 3 main, honest, productive, ways to minimize the cost of being associated with an untrustworthy group.

1) Signal, with speech, dress, mannerisms, etc, to distinguish & differentiate yourself.

2) Offer more positive value.

3) Suppress the parasitism of your own group.

Don’t demand ingroup terms from outgroups. It is NEVER worthwhile to extend you those terms, and those demands are always dishonest and parasitic. But by employing the methods above, you can obtain better out-group terms from others for your group.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that ingroups and out-group are generally defined according to kinship because closer kinship makes trust and altruism, the mechanisms of ingroup privilege, evolutionarily self-enforcing (they reward and propagate other instances of your genes.)

Conversely, kinship also makes defection, nonperformance, & irreciprocity (the basic mechanisms of out-group parasitism) evolutionarily unstable & self-punishing (they punish & therefore diminish & handicap other instances of your own genes.) This is why ingroup is kingroup.

The Economics of Association in Heterogeneous Polities

It’s because ethnic Europeans, particularly northern Europeans, largely because of geography and culture came out of the dark ages first, had the enlightenment first, developed the first fully middle-class civilization first, and did so both genetically, culturally, and institutionally, by using militias due to weak central governments, individual sovereignty because of militias, rule of law not rule by discretion, manorialism’s suppression of underclass rates of reproduction, and by aggressive hanging of criminal population for 1000 years, and as a consequence producing the highest trust society, with the highest trust population.

So, in commerce and politics, ethnic Europeans have obtained a premium for their (earned) reputation for relative trustworthiness and work ethic (middle-class public behavior), and they preserve the premium through the intergenerational transfer of those habits, norms, traditions, and values.

The problem is that high trust polities and a ‘deserved’ reputation for high trust is extremely expensive and no other people so far have been able to produce it except the Japanese and Koreans. This is the reason for the west’s higher standard of living.

The rest is due to demographic distributions, meaning that the vast majority of ethnic Europeans are within one degree of the genetic middle class (meaning that they can learn to use technology independently by reading), whereas the vast majority of peoples who complain about the reputational advantage of ethnic Europeans are from groups with historically larger underclasses, and therefore, lower medians, where cultural norms are determined by the median, and we are all judged by ‘averages (median) of our group”. Why? Because stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. They are verified or falsified every day in every personal interaction.

We are all punished for (experience discounts), and privileged for (experience premiums) our identities: manners, ethics, morals, habits, body language, hygiene, speech pattern, vocabulary, dress, fitness, and everything else.

To lose your discount or gain a premium, change your group’s sexual, social, economic, intellectual, and market value, by changing your group’s demographics, habits, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, values, rituals so that they are ALSO middle class (market) rather than whatever tradition you come from. it’s not complicated. Before the 1964 immigration act, everyone who came to America did it.

The lesson is that people are not scarce. Individuals are not special.Humans by and large are a commodity. There are, if anything, far too many of us. People must work hard to find some way of providing value to others so that they are useful in the marketplace for sexual, social, economic, political cooperation. And because value is rare, and people are not scarce, all people are careful in making the best investments that they can. And they invest in what they can see.

Hence why Jews and Asians do better than ethnic Europeans in American university acceptance, but no one criticizes them. While whites are criticized daily, and experience reverse discrimination in the academy, politics, and the media, while preserving their economic advantage in the workplace, and their social status.

So, it’s not a privilege, it’s a cultural premium for 1350 years of suppression of underclass reproduction and downward expansion of the middle class. And training your children to do what is uncomfortable in order to obtain long term benefits of conforming to middle-class behaviors.

And it’s almost impossible to alter for that reason.

People from other cultures or ethnicities assume white identity is arbitrary but it is merely the universal adaptation of middle-class market behavior on a civilizational scale.

Join the middle class by acting as middle class, and getting others with your identity to act middle class. It’s not complicated, but it’s terribly difficult, which is why so few cultures can do it without many generations of middle-class civilization.

The Flip Side of Colonialism: The Industrial Production of Prosperity:

Colonialism was a profound if not most profound good since the invention of farming – we dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, hard labor, child mortality, early death, suffering, tyranny, and subjectivity to the vicissitudes of nature – kicking and screaming all the while.

Western failure was only in having the European civil wars to contain Germany, and contain Russia, and leaving our project of dragging mankind out of ignorance and poverty incomplete.

That failure led to the only significant problems of colonialism: (a) the failure to complete the replacement french despotism with English developmentalism. (b) the absence of the technology of fiat money credit that would have eliminated the need for gold and resource extraction. (c) the collapse left an opening for the Counter-Revolutions of French Socialism, Jewish Communism, Islamic Fundamentalism. (d) the introduction of medicines and health science without the introduction of eugenics (birth control). (e) the failure of our postwar investments in the third world which generally were too insubstantial to do other than delay or inhibit internal growth of demand.

Slavery was universal and whites were more frequently the subject of it (by muslims) than perpetrators of it. The vast majority of slaves when to the caribbean and south america.

Why? Whites are not malaria-immune but many blacks are. Whites have higher (hotter) metabolisms, and blacks don’t. Whites had to be taken from the criminal or impoverished classes and died in droves. Africans were captured by other Africans as prisoners of war in order their attempt to unify West Africa and complete the production of the West African empire (which would have happened had the brits not intervened – anglos were wrong as usual – too utopian.).

This meant that the warm weather colonies most able to produce high-value goods (particularly sugar) with Africans, (a) had more survivors, (b) spread the genres of previously constrained peoples to new territories, (c) forcibly modernized both cultures, civilizations, and Genes. And it was not ‘known’ that enslaved primitives were capable of civilized behavior at the time. It was only in the 19th century after the industrial revolution that we found that citizens were more profitable than serfs, were more profitable than slaves.

Creating middle classes by resource exploitation, and selling manufactured (value added) goods to developing peoples was the only means possible of dragging the vast body of dirty, ignorant, superstitious, violent, poor, disease ridden, un-domesticated human animals out of of their condition, and reforming their societies incrementally until they themselves could create a middle class civilization capable of self governance without threat to more advanced civilizations.

The west was punished in the ancient world for Truth, Reason, Law, and Technology, and punished in the current world for the same.

We dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, and disease in the ancient world and the modern and in both eras the ungrateful rebelled like the children that they are.

Why? Because western truth forces you to face your sexual, social, economic, and political value in the face.

Why? Because that is what it means to be western: Truth Regardless of Consequences to the Status Hierarchy.



White Protestants lost political power, status and their culture due to “enlightened choice”. There was no material reason why they HAD to lose power. They chose to be ‘Christian’, which was the sentiment needed to unify a fragmented Europe. They could just as easily have chosen to keep slavery, to keep control of government, to forbid immigrants political power, to maintain the requirement of Protestantism. In other words, they could have done what most civilizations have done. What most civilizations still do. In fact, the entire purpose of nationalism was to give racial groups their own sovereignty after centuries of tribal distribution across monarchic Europe.

It Wasn’t Political Power, It Was Economic Power

Starting with the industrial revolution, the dominance of the HOUSEHOLD lost importance, and therefore the dominance of the MALE waned. The decline has been not just among white men, but among men in particular. Women’s entry into the workplace has not hurt high performing men, but since women have taken all the lower risk clerical functions in society, and seem to largely be better suited for it, this has moved men toward the edges – into the riskier professions.

They Gave Up Power Voluntarily

These voluntary abdicators of male political power were Christians. They tried the experiment. It was a heady debate. We have just wrapped class, race and cultural preference in a deep cloak of secular language instead of religious language. But the underlying sentiments and logic are essentially the same. We have a religion of democratic, secular humanism rather than paternal Christianity. The difference is that the political myth of the ‘white man’s burden’ of anglo exceptionalism in order to morally justify the empire, has become the myth of democratic secular humanism in order to justify the empire.

The Experiment Failed

What has happened is that these previously tolerant people believe that the experiment failed. That their conservative sentiments (the belief that humans have immutable behaviors), have returned to precedence over their liberal sentiments (people can aspire to utopian behavior in the right environment) have changed. White Men in particular tolerated man-hating feminism because they felt it was somewhat justified, but that society would ‘settle back’ because people have ‘natural tendencies’. White Men felt that because of slavery and WW2, that they were wrong in their fantasy of exceptionalism – that they had betrayed their Christian sentiments, and so they tolerated criticism in the hope that society would settle down. White men today no longer believe those egalitarian myths. When you destroy a mythos you don’t destroy just the ‘bad parts’. You destroy the entire system of myths. They no longer believe in their guilt. They now feel equally wronged.

The Levant

Nassim Taleb in his book The Black Swan, describes how he and his fellow members of the levant thought that they had solved the problem of heterogeneity and that they were more civilized than the rest of the world. But it was a myth. That small civilization is now dead and gone, and gone within his lifetime. People continue to murder each other in droves around the world. And while capitalism decreases costs and increases the quality of life, and it because of the prosperity, decreases the incentive to devolve into violence, it is not a sufficient tool for altering the human perception of status, nor of the realities of cooperating in groups: tribes remain fixed in their cooperative networks even under capitalism. It’s just FRICTION that is less important because there is less scarcity of opportunity.

What Happens Next

The question becomes, a) whether white men will cease tolerating their denigration and become activists, – or b) whether they will do what men have in all other collapsed cultures, which is abandon the Fraternal Order, and become like Byzantines, Mediterraneans, or Africans, and simply pursue non-political localized self-interest which will over time, simply erode the legitimacy of the state. There is another option c) which is violence. But that is always a minority position because it is so costly. And if history is a guide we will get all three of these factors.

Western Protestant Culture Is An Anomaly

The sentiments of white male culture are an anomaly. It is the product of the fraternal order of city-defending soldiers who treat the ‘market’ (which they don’t differentiate from ‘society’) as if they were shareholders. That sentiment is extremely rare. If that sentiment ceases, we will not get the civilization that utopians aspire to. We have a lot of historically similar situations. We might get something random. But history tells us what we will get will not likely be the ‘free society’ that we aspired to.

Urbanization Affects Social Institutions By Increasing Anonymity And Decreasing Economic Conformity

We are urbanizing, world wide. And we must. There are too many of us to return to farming. We no longer live where we are self-sustaining yet produce excess in order to participate in the market for the purpose of getting money with which to buy what we cannot produce. Nearly all of us must participate in the market for our entire livelihood, trading our skills in manipulating someone else’s tools and materials for money so that we can buy ALL of our needs in the market. We live in a world of perceived risk, surrounded by plenty.

But urbanization under market-centricity poses difficult problems. The problem of ‘social order’ (conformity to law or convention) occurs when any civilization sufficiently urbanizes. The human social tools of ostracization (economic exclusion) and fraternalism (economic inclusion) do not operate in dense populations where anonymity is common and therefore social ostracization alone cannot block people from opportunities. There is no evidence that these social tools operate in the dense urban environment. There is no evidence that Law or Religion can cause them to operate either.

The Shift To A Racial Minority

This is the last generation where white men will feel guilty about their position. They feel disempowered. They are soon to be a minority. They dislike being ridiculed and having their status trampled upon, and are rapidly considering it RACISM against them. (Which they believe will give them the right in turn, to be racist.)

The question is what will they do. And if history is any indicator, most of them will do nothing but acquiesce. But like any racial group, they will likely form a disenfranchised but radical minority who is an activist. This is what is occurring today. If the minority gains traction it gains followers from those who previously acquiesced – people follow a winning team. White men are also developing the sentiment of racial persecution, and with it, the egalitarian Christian sentiments, and their historical guilt are waning.

When a people are oppressed they revert to self-serving behavior and abandon behaviors of social sacrifice.

The Forgone Opportunity Economy

Society is not paid for by taxes. We pay for bureaucrats and soldiers with taxes. Society, or social order, is paid for by refraining from seizing opportunities. We create property by not stealing. We create comfort and safety with manners. We create prosperity and frictionless trade by non-corruption and ethical behavior. We prevent ourselves from externalizing high costs to others, and often to ourselves by moral behavior. We take on the burden of truth-telling. We define the granularity of property, the rules of the market. Each of us does ten thousand things a day to pay the tax for social order. And that tax system of opportunity costs is what we call ‘culture’. it is the highest cost of human capital a group can invest in.

Groups with different systems compete. They get angry with one another because they ‘sense’ theft or fraud, not of money, but of the sacrifices that they made for their group’s benefit. They get angry when their sacrifices (forgone opportunities) are wasted when another race or social class demeans them. In this way, human groups conduct forgone-opportunity-funded warfare, but they largely do it peacefully.

This is the racial and cultural economy. Money, Status, Forgone Opportunity, Access to Opportunity, and Access To Mates. Money is the least of them. Political power is simply the means by which to control the economy. Not just the money economy. But the status, opportunity and mating economy.

Institutions (self-perpetuating social habits) are the highest cost development for any civilization. The people in the civilization know the costs. They know the opportunities that they spent on building that cost. They know the taxes that they paid. They know what property is theirs that they earned. And egalitarianism and charity are happily given as long as they are FRACTIONAL and do not allow one group to steal its institutional costs from another.

People are not having a simple emotional reaction. They see usurpation of political power as THEFT. They are ACTING like they see it as theft.

The Implications

For everyone else who is not a white male, it becomes the question of how a society can be managed, or how it will operate without those sentiments of fraternalism. We never get what we think we will. The French and Russian revolutions were horrific both in process and outcome. But most if not all civilizations simply decay once they urbanize, and their expansionist class of males surrenders to the sense of impotence, or the luxury of hedonism, by exporting the effort needed to maintain the social order to the bureaucracy.

The general assumption is that the democratic process will solve this problem of social integration and power distribution. But there is no evidence in history that such a thing occurs but rarely, and almost exclusively in England. Politics is a market, and people will circumvent the market when it no longer serves them.

No Longer A Nation But An Empire

The USA, thanks to Teddy Roosevelt and his ilk, is an empire in imitation of the European model. Empires consist of factions. Factions are geographic (trade routes), racial (genetic), cultural (normative), and religious (legal). But an empire over whom half the population feels oppressed and stolen from is simply fragile.

We are no longer a country contentiously dealing with a problem of integration caused by our need for the population to complete the westward expansion of the continent. Instead, we are an empire over some number of smaller nations yearning to be free, and a disenfranchised geographic ex-majority that appears to be developing a new sentiment (acquiescence to failure), a political movement (tea party), and a radical movement (militias). At least, that is where this appears to be going, if history is any indicator.

And men who no longer see the existing order as beneficial to them may not work to overthrow it, but they will not work to maintain it. And that may be worse.

The Difference Between Methods

The difference between conservatives and progressives lies in the different assumptions we have of human nature. Progressives are utopians that believe we are free to build whatever world we choose to – they err on the side of people ‘doing good’ which is why progressivism is a movement of the industrial period. Conservatives err on the side of people ‘pursuing self-interest’ which is why conservatism is an ancient sentiment, although conservatism as a political movement is a reaction to the English and French revolutions and the rise of socialism and communism. It is a contemporary reaction to progressivism. And like all conservative movements, it is a reaction to the perception of theft of one’s assets by political means (even if those assets were unjustly acquired as in mercantilism or predatory banking or slavery).

Conservatives believe that human beings have innate sensibilities, biases, and preferences that are immutable. And because they are immutable we should develop institutions that take these immutable differences into account. We should expect people to act with racial preferences because people almost always do act with racial preferences. They do so because intra-racial status is more beneficial for the majority than is extra-racial status. And status controls access to mates. Except at the extremes where status can be increased by breaking racial barriers, status determines access to mates, determines access to opportunities, access to networks, in general, access to a better life.

The Economics Of Race And The Impact On Politics

So the question is, what will happen in a world where we have a white minority whose traditions create the opportunity for democracy and rotation of the elites, and most people have racial preferences, where there is no method of organization urban conformity, but we have a political system that allows democratic rotation of elites? In general, at least in history, people tend to vote in what is called “Bonapartism” or a totalitarian who can forcibly resolve differences. Bonapartism is democratic totalitarianism.

Our systemic answer to urbanization was credit. Credit is more useful than laws because with record-keeping it produces both positive and negative incentives. We are likely going to continue to build the credit society instead of the religious and legal societies. In fact, law is so technical it is largely immaterial, and most people are both isolated from it and ignorant of it. We actually operate by credit and exchange instead of legal or religious conformity. We live in a credit society.

But while credit solves the problem of anonymity and ostracization, it does not solve the problem of tribal and cultural sovereignty, which is a code-phrase for the system of status signals among people with racial and cultural similarities.

In a world of economic plenty and cheap debt and fiat money, there is an inflationary impact upon status perceptions that like a tide floats all boats and reduces class and race friction.

But in a world of unemployment, which may be structural, permanent, and wherein opportunities are more scarce, and therefore racial status more advantageous, and in a society where there is a very large and disenfranchised minority that is government by an activist political system that they see as tyrannical and against their interest, it seems unlikely that people will support that government, that way of life, or even the assumption that the government and way of life are ‘goods’.

Race matters. Race matters because ENOUGH people act with racial preferences, and MORE of them act with racial preferences under economic duress because acting within racial preferences is economically rewarding for the majority of its members.

It’s just simple economics.


American Mistakes (harmony not markets)

1) War of independence, rather than paying our debt for the french and indian war to the crown, and negotiating exit from european banking cartels. (Beneficial outcome:  writing down the common law in a constitution)
2) Not buying and paying for the repatriation of the slaves.
3) Not letting the south secede, civil war, and the catastrophe of the 14th amendment. No beneficial outcome.
4) Joining WW1 rather than letting Germany restore herself after Napoleon’s destruction of the holy roman (German) empire (France’s equivalent of the war of northern aggression)
3) The Versailles treaty granting France it’s wishes to destroy the holy roman empire and de-Prussianize Germanic civilization – the heart of european civilization for all of our history.
4) Joining WW2
5) Taking over rather than reinforcing and restoring the British empire, as the primary global defense of western civilization.
6) Taking over the pound as the world reserve currency
7) Not letting loose our generals Macarthur in china and Patton in Russia.
8) Not suppression the jewish postwar movements – particularly communism, marxism, cultural marxism, and postmodernism
9) Tolerating libel slander and gossiping under the pretense of free speech.
8) No fault divorce, child support and alimony, and removing liability for interference in the marriage.
9) Not helping Russia after the fall
10) Converting from Eugenic Credit to Dysgenic Credit: That’s how it was done. Universities, Credit, and Stacking the vote with Immigration: depopulation by credit expansion instead of eugenics by credit management.

British Mistakes

1) Not creating a house of the colonies)
2) allowing jews into the state, academy…

The greatest mistakes our country made were not letting the south secede, expanding the franchise to those unproductive and lacking responsibility, and the hart cellar act to open the gates to the underclasses – destroying the American experiment in a third way: middle class civ. These are followed closely by tolerating the postwar suppression of the american eugenics movement, and not brutally crushing the communist movement, marxist-postmodernist movements.

We were tolerant in greek, roman, germanic, and british civilizations.

Tolerance is a weakness not a virtue.






3. The Law of the European People

Lex Europaei
“The Law of the Europeans”

“The Production of Transcendence”

Adaptation: Speed, Maneuver, Initiative, Adaptability, by Loyalty, Heroism, Excellence, Technology, Beauty, Truth, Reciprocity

Our People: Europeans


That group of West Eurasians, descended from Ancient North Eurasians, by first the Early Neolithic Farmer expansion, their monolith civilization replacing the european hunter gatherers, then by the Western Indo European (Aryan) Expansion and Replacement of The Early Neolithic Farmers, The West Indo European (Aryan) Cultural and Technological Revolution, that together evolved into the Finnic, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Italic (now Romance), and Hellenic(Now Greek) Languages, and the shared experiences of The Indo European (Aryan) religion of The Father of the Daylight Sky, The Beaker People and their Sacrifice, The Greek Intellectual Revolution, The Roman Administrative and Legal Revolution, The Germanic Religion, The Christian Religion, The Mediterranean Collapse, The Semitic Dark Age and Wars against Islam, The Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Peoples, The Rule of Law Revolution, The Renaissance, The Aristotelian Restoration, The Empirical Revolution, The Reformation, The Agrarian and Financial Evolution, The Age of Exploration, The Industrial Revolution, The Scientific Revolution,  The Darwinian Revolution, The Technological Revolution, and the Informational Revolution, Residing between the Iberian Peninsula and the Urals, the artic and the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian seas, and during the Age of sail, Domesticating, and Settling the American and Australian continents and their various islands, currently classified as Haplogroups R1b, R1a, N, I1, and I2 and and no other. With political if not genetic inclusion of early neolithic farmers and anatolians in sardinia, sicily, the italian boot, greece, and those remaining Old Europeans in the Balkans. And specifically excluding those competing west eurasians of the indo-iranian, and indian genetic spectra, and the ancestral anatolians and caucasians that are now extinct.

Our Law: Lex Europaei. Or, The Law of The European People, The Natural Law of the European People, The Natural Law, The Law of Sovereignty, Sovereigntarianism.


Our Ancient, Ancestral, And Traditional rules of display word and deed, by which we agree to refrain from: eradication, predation, and parasitism, by: war, genocide, conquest, destruction, plunder, pillage, killing, violence, enslavement, enserfment, and tax farming, and instead to cooperate by: exchange of, and reciprocal insurance of, sovereignty, and reciprocity, truth and duty, regardless of cost so that together we may profit from our domestication of ourselves, others, and nature as we transcend the universe into heavens, and ourselves into the gods we imagined.

Our Order


The production of status by heroic sacrifice to the commons.


He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. The men who can defend or destroy, always own and control things. The question is only whether they act to control things they own. This is why a universal militia is required to produce rule of law. And this is why only western man has rule of law – individual sovereignty. The purpose of the militia is to create the power to deny power, so that no one else has the power to control things or destroy things – leaving only sovereignty and reciprocity under the natural law as means of survival. Therefore the host of men must exercise control of things in order to prevent control of things, leaving only the natural law, and the markets for reciprocity within them.


The Rise

The Ancient Greek Way

The Ancient Roman Way

The Medieval Holy Roman Empire Way

The North Sea (Scandinavian) Way

The Modern (British, American) Way

The Fall

The European peoples are able to evolve genetically, culturally, economically, technologically and scientifically faster than all other peoples because of our traditions of self determination, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, excellence, heroism, rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, where the market for suppression of parasitism we call the law, and the market for reciprocity in the production of goods, services, and information, evolve as rapidly as possible, thereby advancing productive innovations in each other’s interests, and suppression innovations in parasitism against others interests, in exchange for softly suppresses the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, thereby allowing us to divert proceeds from our production to the commons, and the higher returns for all from those commons, the most important of which are truth before face, trust, artistic, scientific, technological, economic adaptive and and innovative velocity, and the prosperity, joy, and peace of mind that results from it.

Western civilization is not the first, but it is the fastest, in the prehistoric, ancient, and modern worlds, sovereignty expands human ability most rapidly for the simple reason that market rule, limited by natural law. creates both the most incentive to innovate and change, and the least resistance to innovation and change, that are possible at any given moment.

Our Purpose








Our Group Strategy Is Adaptive Velocity
Graceful Ascent in success, Graceful Failure To Success
A via=negativa not via-positiva strategy eliminate the false, evil, and bad, and all else is true, good, or excellen
The law is more important than government.


Capturing energy creates the ability to defeat the dark forces of entropy and time.
creates the ability to obtain the difference between our expenditure and capture of energy.
creates the possibility of acting to alter the course of regular events to defeat the dark forces of ignorance.
Reason creates the possibility of inventing increasingly complex means of acting.
(Adaptation …)

And Whereas;

Agency is necessary for Self Determination
Self Determination is Necessary for Transcendence
Transcendence is necessary to evolve into the gods we imagine.

And Whereas;

Godhood is only possible under Omniscience and Omnipotence
and Omnipotence are only possible by Transcendence
Transcendence is only possible by Self Determination
Self Determination
is only possible by Agency
Agency is only possible Under Sovereignty
is Only Possible Under Natural Law (Reciprocity).
Natural Law of Reciprocity is Only Possible Under Market (Adversarial) Law.
Market Law is only Possible Under Common (Empirical) Law.
Common Law is only possible under Testimonial Truth.
Testimonial Truth is only Possible Under Physical Law (Laws of Nature).
Physical Law is Possible only under Determinism.
Determinism is Possible only if the universe demonstrates Regularity.
Regularity is possible to know only if we possess Memory and Reason.
Memory and Reason are necessary for Agency

And Whereas

Self Determination is only possible by Sovereignty
Sovereignty is only possible by the force to deny alternatives.
Sufficient Force under Sovereignty is only possible for a Universal Militia
A Universal Militia under …  is only  possible

Our Way:

—“Liberalism [Rule of Law] works for the English because they are essentially Viking pirates —“England did away with the principle of the organized state, and put in its place the notion of the free private citizen. The citizen demands permission to fight alone in the ruthless struggle for existence, for this is the only way he can satisfy his Viking instincts. Buckle, Malthus, and Darwin later postulated that the basic essence of “society” was the naked struggle for existence. And they were absolutely right, at least as far as their own country and people were concerned. To be sure, in modern England this principle operates in a highly refined and perfected fashion. But evidence of a more rudimentary adherence to it can be found in the Icelandic sagas, where such behavior is obviously spontaneous and not borrowed from another culture. The forces with which William the Conqueror took England in 1066 could be called a “society” of knightly adventurers, and English trading companies have subdued and expropriated entire countries—most recently, since 1390, the inland regions of South Africa. Gradually the entire English nation assumed the characteristics of a “society.” The Old Norse instinct for piracy and clever trading has, in the end. influenced the Englishman’s attitude toward all of reality, including property, work, foreign peoples, and the weaker individuals and classes among his own people. The same instinct has also yielded political techniques that are extremely effective weapons in the struggle for mastery of the globe. A concept complementary to that of “society” is the “private citizen.” He represents the sum of certain positive ethical qualities which like all great. ethical virtues are not acquired through training or education, but are borne in the blood and perfected after “passing through generation after generation. The peculiarly English style of politics is essentially one that involves private citizens or groups of such individuals. This, and only this, is the very meaning of parliamentary government. Cecil Rhodes was a private citizen who conquered foreign countries. The American billionaires are private citizens who rule foreign countries by means of an inferior class of professional politicians. German liberalism, on the other hand, is ethically valueless. It merely says “No!” to the state, and is unable to justify its opposition by offering equally high-minded and vigorous positive- suggestions.”— Spengler


Competitive Excellence

Maneuver, Adaptability

Agency, Initiative


Reciprocity (regardless of cost)

Consisting of:
Productive, Fully Informed,, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, Free of Imposition upon the Demonstrated interests of others by Externality, Warrantied within the limits of possible restitution.

( … )

Martial Reporting and Warranty (Testimony regardless of cost)
Oath(promise) and Contract(regardless of cost)
Natural Law of Tort and Restitution (regardless of cost)
Jury of Peers (thang, jury, house, senate) and Judge of Last Resort (king)

Demand for Productivity and Meritocracy (non-parasitism regardless of cost)
Demand for Incremental Suppression (defense regardless of cost)

Markets in Everything:
… Exercise of Demonstrated Due Diligence
… … Beast
… … Slave
… … Serf
… … Freeman (Freedom)
… … Citizen (Liberty)
… … Sovereign (Peer) (insurance of All)
… Limiting ourselves to reciprocity in:
… Markets for:
… … association,
… … cooperation,
… … production,
… … reproduction,
… … commons,
… … polities,
… … and war

Natural Eugenics,
With the direction of surplus proceeds of production
To the production of Commons
And the asymmetric returns on investments in commons

The optimum human organization
With the fastest innovation
With the least resistance
With the greatest competitive advantage
With the maximum quality of life,
With the Maximum adaptation,
With maximum evolution,
In the shortest possible time.

The limitations of man,
The vicissitudes of nature,
And a universe hostile,
To the evolution of man,
Into the gods we imagine.

Every man taking the oath is,
… a son (daughter)
… a brother (sister)
… a father (mother)
… a laborer
… a craftsman,
… an artist
… a warrior,
… a soldier,
… a sheriff,
… a judge,
… a legislator,
… and a sovereign,
… warranties the demonstrated interests of his peers,
… in the distributed dictatorship
… of sovereign men.
And every woman taking the oath is.
… a daughter
… a sister
… a mother
… a laborer
… a craftsman,
… an artist
… a caretaker,
… a protector,
… a sheriff,
… warranties the demonstrated interests of her peers,
… in the distributed dictatorship
… of sovereign women.

The Transcendence of man (into gods)
Agency: The Transcendence of Man

omniscience, omnipotence, excellence, truth, beauty

Using The Industrialization of Agency.
Truth and Oath
Duty and Commons
Excellence and Heroism
Sovereignty and Reciprocity
The Natural Law, Judge, and Jury
Markets in
… association,
… cooperation,
… production,
… reproduction,
… commons,
… polities, and
… war.

Our Way of Sovereigns, From Individuals, to States to Empires to Civilizations

Our Law of Sovereign Peoples

Our People

( … ) define


Our genetics are our common capital, an inheritance from our ancestors, a competitive advantage for each of us and all of our people. You have no right to harm or dilute asset this advantage for personal gain or preference. Other peoples have no right to purchase or steal it from us.

–“Not One Drop”–

Our Oath:

–“(I shall not lie, deceive, cheat,  bait, steal, harm, conspire,  … submit, or show cowardice in battle.  I shall ….  hinder not, assist when possible, help when called, defend the commons, safeguard the weak, punish the wicked, .. and kill the evil ).”—

Our Debts:

–“( … ) Christian, Heathen Pagan, Aryan, Aristotelian”–

Our Law of Sovereigns:

—“One-against-one, the Spartans are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all the world. For though they are free men, they are not entirely free. They accept Law as their master. And they respect this master more than your subjects respect you. Whatever he commands, they do. And his command never changes: It forbids them to flee in battle, whatever the number of their foes. He requires them to stand firm — to conquer or die.”—Damaratus to Xerxes.

Sovereignty.  ( … definition … )

Every man shall act, and none shall prevent him from acting, as his own  nation, army, state, judiciary, monarchy, legislature, economy, and joins with allies to create polities, or exits from them to join another of his own accord.

There is no reciprocity, morality, or law between nations other than violence. As such, man need never submit – he can always resort to war – and defeat if he chooses.


No Authority Only Markets : Survival by Competition


Our Duty of Care :

1. Reciprocity in Transcendence

Self Determination is only possible by Agency
Agency is only possible Under Sovereignty
is Only Possible Under Natural Law (Reciprocity).

2. Reciprocity in Non-imposition

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, where those Interests were obtained by Settlement (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.

Your Demonstrated Interests Include:

1. Natural Interests:

(1) Self: Life, Body, Genes, Memories, Mind, Attention Time, Action, Consumption of air, water, food, space, shelter;
(2) Privacy: (Exit from the Commons) That which is not ‘of or in the commons’:  body, bodily functions, sexual functions, mind, memories, and external records thereof – the mind is not action.
(3) Opportunity for Action, Stimulation, Experience, Acquisition.
(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) Association and Dissociation: Association for, and Disassociation and Exit from: Cooperation, Insurance, Reproduction, Production, Distribution, and Trade: Friends, Acquaintances, Neighbors, Cooperative Relations, Commercial Relations, Political Relations, and Military Relations

2. Several (Personal) Interests:

(1) Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”  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.

3. Common Interests, or “Commons” (Community Property)

Physical Capital
(1) Resources: natural resources.
(2) Formal (PhysicalCommons: waterways, parks, buildings, improvements, and infrastructure.
(3) Monuments: arts and artifacts.

Formal Institutional Capital
(4) Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Government, Laws, Courts, Banking, Treasury, Education
(5) Cooperative Institutions: Family, Neighborhood, Polity,
(6) Opportunity Interests: Un-homesteaded Opportunities, Markets

Informal Institutional Capital
(7) Informal (Traditional) Institutions : Religion, Mythology, History, Tradition
(8) Informal (Normative Tacit) Institutions: Our norms: habits, manners, ethics, and morals, Trust, Truthful Speech
(10) Informational (Explicit) Commons: Knowledge. Information.

Human Capital
(11) Skills (Training, General Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge)
(12) Population and Distribution: The distribution of our classes
(13) Genetic Interests: Our Genome

Civilizational Capital
( … )

Definition:  We may refer to the complete set of ‘demonstrated interests’, including the Personal, Several, and Common, as “Property-in-Toto”

3. Reciprocity in Deed

Thou shalt not, by absence of display, word or deed, allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated Interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those Interests were obtained by Settlement (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.

4. Reciprocity in Speech

in western natural law, one can propose a superior, reciprocal and truthful solution, but one cannot undermining the current solution without providing one that is better.

5. Reciprocity in Display

( .. )

6. Reciprocity in Defense

Thou shalt not, by display, word, or deed, or absence of display, word or deed, tolerate the imposition of costs upon the demonstrated Interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those Interests were obtained by Settlement (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.

Our People shall be Sovereign Individually and Collectively

Self Determination

Self Defense

Self Rule

Self Government

Self Sufficient

Self Development


(Treason to submit)

Every Man A Deputy, Every Man A Sheriff,  Every Man a Warrior

( … )

The Natural Law’s Absence of Need For Letter of Marque

( … and profit fro having done so)

7. Reciprocity in Restitution, Punishment and Prevention

Limitless Restitution, punishment prevention

( … ) our people shall be free of harm anywhere they tread.

If given entry into a domain, he shall be constrained under our laws, and no other, and he remains insured by our people, under our law,

8. Reciprocity in Inalienation

(Treason to submit)

Our Scope of Duty of Care (rights and obligations)

( … display ) sacred behavior in commons

( … word ) non interference, non-interruption

( …. deed ) service, assistance, help, charity   (duty to help solve question, problem, etc)

( … duel ) (‘niggering’ –  right of kill)

(… intolerance )

( Human life is not intrinsically valuable. either reciprocal  and transcendent or harmful  as such reciprocity is the minimum standard for circumvention of conquest, deprivation, rule, serfdom, enslavement, and death.)

The Crimes


solutions not complaints

Our Limit To Duty of Care

( … )  rationality.  three  threes….

The first question is why not to suicide? This choice is that of personal philosophy.

The Three Choices avoidance, cooperation, predation.
The second question one must answer is why engage in cooperation rather than free riding, parasitism, and predation? This question is that of ethics.

The first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?

If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff.

If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff.

If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff.

It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange.

The third question, and one that a group must answer, is why engage in cooperation rather than free-riding, parasitism, and predation? This question is that of politics.

3. ???????

A Challenge to Duty of Care

(challenge someone) opportunity

3. Accusation

4. Prosecution

5. Conviction

6. Judgment

7. Restitution

8. Punishment

9. Prevention

3. Insurance

Our Failure of Duty of Care.

And should you fail in your Duty of Care, and bound by Duty of Care will be accused, brought before the court to be judged by a jury of your peers.

And should others fail their duty of care, you shall accuse them, bring them, even against their will, before the court to be judged by a jury of his peers.

Our Jurisprudence

And the court shall determine whether a harm has been done – and whether the accused possessed sufficient intent, means, motive, and opportunity for performance of the harm, or failure to prevent the harm.

If the court cannot determine if a harm has been done, ……

One may claim guilt or innocence, and trial before his peers, or trial by combat (suicide).

If the accused claims innocence or partial innocence, he may ask to argue his case before the court, or before the jury referee’d by the court.

And the court shall apportion a jury in number according to the severity of the harm, whether harmed by the individual, group, organization, cult, family, clan, tribe, nation, or civilization, by his judgment and his judgment alone.

After arguments, made before the referee of the court, and upon demand of the court, the jury shall deliver judgment, of innocent with nullification, prejudice for the accuser for dishonest accusation, innocent of the charge, innocent by uncertainty, guilty as charged, with prejudice for the accused of dishonest defense, or guilty, which shall be recorded by the court;

If innocent he shall go free. If wrongly accused in error, sue for restitution. If wrongly accused with intent harm, sue for restitution and punishment.

If guilty the court shall decide upon the demand for restitution, punishment, and punishment sufficient for the prevention of others from the same;

Whereupon the accused may appeal to a higher court if one exists, whereupon the higher court will determine and take the appeal, only if the judicial process failed.

The guilty party shall pay the costs of the court, stayed until denial of appeal.

And every Man under the defense of the law and bound by that law, having given the oath to that law, to his peers, is bound to enforce it – or likewise fail his duty of care, and shall be prosecuted as a conspirator in the crimes adjudged.

And every able-bodied man, having taken The Oath in exchange for reciprocal defense  under the law, and thereby bearing Duty of Care, under the law, for self, mate, family, kin, kith, commons and polity, shall keep and bear arms sufficient for the enforcement of The Law, whether in defense of self, as sheriff in defense of the commons, or as a warrior in defense of the polity, people, nation, and civilization.

Organization of Sovereigns

Ternary Law of Cooperation

( … )

Ternary Law of Coercions


North – Physical: Military, Law, Sheriff, Limits (Limits)
West – Persistence: Family, Generations, Consumption (Demand)
East – Economic: Trade, Production, Science (Supply)
South – Moral: Fitness, Faith, Education (Ambitions)


Cooperation between the classes

Such that: 
Within Markets, we Cooperate on similar means despite differing ends.
And Compatibility and Hierarchy Despite Differences
(tripartism > quadripartite-ism )

1. Force and Order
“Those Who Fight” > (Generation of Limits: Order)
… … Those Who Enforce The Natural Law; (Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs)

2. Remuneration and Production
“Those Who Discover” > (Generation of Opportunity)
… … Those who discover resources, science, technology, information
“Those Who Organize” > (Generation of Supply)
… … Those Who Organize:  Those Who Labor Under the Natural and Physical laws
… … (Middle Class);
“Those Who Labor” > (Generation of Transformation)
… … Those Who Labor Under The Natural and Physical Laws;
… … (Lower middle, Working, Laboring):

3. Exclusion, Inclusion and Care
“Those Who Reproduce” > (Generation of Generations)
… … Mothers and their Offspring
“Those Who Depend” > (Generation of Insurance)
… … The Aged, The Unable, Disabled, and Infirmed.
“Those Who Pray” > (Generation of Demand)
… … Those Who Teach The Natural and Physical Laws  (Academy);

Our Organization of Sovereign States
States serve as a Market for Polities that produce Suitable Commons.

Organization of States
The only form of organization (order) possible under Sovereignty is:

The Military: The Monopoly Production of Order
A Military Consisting of:
… A Universal Militia of Every Able Sovereign Man
… A Set of Regiments for every Region
… A Standing Military of Professional Warriors.

The Judiciary: Rule: Market for Resolution of Differences
Rule of Law
of Reciprocity by the Juris Europaei
An Independent Judiciary
A Constitution as a Contract of Terms Between Sovereigns.

The Government: Market for Commons
The Production of Organization
A Corporation called The State
… A Set of Assets of the State
… A Treasury for the State
… An Insurer of Last Resort
A Hereditary Monarchy as the Judge of Last Resort
A Cabinet of Professional Executives
…  The Military, The State (Trade), The Treasury, The Insurer of Last Resort
A Market for the Commons Consisting of:
… A House of Territories called the Senate
… A House of Commerce
… A House of Commons
… A House of Family

The Economy: Market for Consumption
The Market for Goods, Services, Information.
The Trades, Arts and Sciences
The People

The Family: Market for Generations
A Church a Religion
The School, Trades, Academy
The Families

The Markets for Failure:
The Court to punish individuals and groups for failure under our Law
The Vote To Punish Government and Cabinet for failure under our Law
The Militia to Punish Monarchy for failure under our Law

Our Organization of Sovereign Empires
Empires serve for the Federation of States

Rule of Law of Reciprocity by the Juris Europaei
An Independent Judiciary
A Constitution as a Contract of Terms Between States.
A Corporation called The Empire
… A Set of Assets of the Empire
… A Treasury for the Empire
… An Insurer of Last Resort
A Hereditary Emperor as the Judge of Last Resort
A Cabinet of Professional Executives
…  The Military, The State (Trade), The Treasury, The Insurer of Last Resort
A Market for the Commons Consisting of:
… A House of Territories called the Senate

The Benefit of Empire is :

Discounts on Scale of the Military
Discounts on Trade Negotiations
Discounts on Borrowing(Debt) Capacity
Discounts on Resolution of Disputes between States

Our Success in Transcendence

The European peoples are able to evolve genetically, culturally, economically, technologically and scientifically faster than all other peoples because of our traditions of self determination, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, excellence, heroism, rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, where the market for suppression of parasitism we call the law, and the market for reciprocity in the production of goods, services, and information, evolve as rapidly as possible, thereby advancing productive innovations in each other’s interests, and suppression innovations in parasitism against others interests, in exchange for softly suppresses the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, thereby allowing us to divert proceeds from our production to the commons, and the higher returns for all from those commons, the most important of which are truth before face, trust, artistic, scientific, technological, economic adaptive and and innovative velocity, and the prosperity, joy, and peace of mind that results from it.

Western civilization is not the first, but it is the fastest, in the prehistoric, ancient, and modern worlds, sovereignty expands human ability most rapidly for the simple reason that market rule, limited by natural law. creates both the most incentive to innovate and change, and the least resistance to innovation and change, that are possible at any given moment.

Our Oath of Rule

The state’s only power is violence. That power comes from its claim to a geographic monopoly on violence. That is what a state is: a group of men who lay claim to a monopoly on violence. All actions which compel a person to do other than he wishes in the use of his property, his body and his time in the peaceful and honest exchange of goods, services, information, and affection, are acts of violence. Consequently, there is no action that a state needs to take, and therefore no action a state can possibly take, by the application of law, that is not an act of violence no matter the form or ceremony the state drapes over such actions. A state is the administration of organized violence.

The state exists, and possesses that monopoly on violence, because men grant their capacity for violence to the state, so that it may dispense it as needed from a judicial bench – military and civilian. By granting our violence to the state we remove from ourselves the daily administrative responsibility of parenting society, defending life and property, and resolving conflicts over property, so that we may devote ourselves to the pursuit of specialization in our division of knowledge and labor, and thereby develop our skills so that we can achieve our ambitions, and amuse ourselves, in whatever way we see fit, while decreasing the cost for others to do the same. By the act of granting our violence to the state, we assume that our violence is justly dispensed on our behalf. That is the term of our agreement with the state. It is what makes a man a citizen by choice rather than a subject or slave.

We are all capable of violence. It can never be taken from us as long as we live. We carry it with us as a constant potential. It grows, it matures, and it dissipates with age. It is not a right, or a privilege, because rights and privileges are things we give to each other. Violence is not given, it simply exists in all men at all times. Some of us are wealthier in violence than others. Some men are capable of very little violence, some men are capable of physical violence, some men capable of organized rabble and protest, and some of us, men like me, capable of revolution and civil war. as such, we do not contribute our violence to the state in equal measure.

The state’s power to organize society by way of its laws, institutions, and processes is an illusion constructed by the accumulation of habits in the citizenry; habits which are perpetuated by the daily use of those habits, and where those habits are reinforced by small and instructional displays of violence by the state, so that it may maintain the illusion of a monopoly on violence, and therefore encourage among the citizens, the retention of those habits. The potential for violence within the citizenry vastly outweighs the limited violence that can be distributed by the state. It is a credit to our habits that so little violence need be distributed at any one time that the illusion of the state monopoly can be preserved so cheaply, by so few people, and using so little violence. The actors in the state, in whatever capacity, who make use of my violence on our behalf, are few and comparatively weak. And the state can only dispense my violence, on my behalf, from a judicial bench, because of the illusion of strength that comes from the presence of those habits, and its promise of enforcement by the grant of violence from citizens.

As long as any agent of the state justly parents nation, tribes, clans, families and individuals to reach their greatest potential, as long as any agent of the state justly resolves differences in property, as long as any agent of the state protects life and property — any agents of the state have my consent to maintain that illusion of strength, and to dispense my violence on my behalf to maintain those habits, and that illusion, so that all men may continue to participate in productive exchange, or in humble amusement in the activity of their daily affairs.

But if for one moment, you seek to treat me unjustly, and you begin to believe your own illusion, and you forget that you are dispensing my violence on my behalf, and you seek to treat me not as a citizen who bestows upon you my violence, to be justly administered, but a subject who must obey rules, and if you believe and act as though the law exists not as a convenient tool for the resolution of differences between peers, but a command or scripture that I must obey as a subject, then it is not only my right, but my duty to myself my people, to take from you my given violence, and to remind you if I can, and teach you if I must, that the source of that violence is in its citizens; so that the state understands those habits, their cause, and purpose.

If I must remind the state, I hope it is by this simple, gentle oratory. If that will not suffice, I will not resort to the display of petty personal violence, nor to the disorder of rabblery and protest. Because that is not the capacity of violence that I gave to the state. Then I will instead raise an army and show you what violence it is that I do restrain so that you are once again reminded that you are an actor on my behalf, and that of my fellow citizens, and nothing more. And if you doubt for a moment that I can do such a thing, I will be only so happy to prove it to you, by starting in this very room, on this very day, if necessary.

This duty is what it means to be a citizen; to grant your violence to the state so that it may be justly administered; and to dismantle that state should it unjustly use your given violence.

Foolish men find comfort in the sameness of life, without understanding that such constancy, and the illusion of control we have over our daily affairs, can be rapidly changed by one small spark, one man’s choice, one seemingly random act. Foolish men and even more foolish women, believe habits and rules are truths and words of material substance, rather than conveniences; that their power is divine or systemic, and that their methods and rules are wise and scientific, rather than the accidental, pragmatic and convenient efforts of simple men fitfully crafting an edifice in anticipation of the turbulent events of an unknown future. These rules and ideas are nothing more than the limited judgments, habits, and fantasies of such men, however well their intentions.

And if at any point such foolish men lose sight of the fact that these convenient methods and tools are less important than, and subservient to, the men whose lives are affected by the use of my violence on my behalf, or if such foolish men forget that rules have no wisdom of their own, without the wisdom to interpret them, and that the use of them must result in the betterment of each man, then, they have forgotten the purpose of those rules. That purpose is the perfection of each individual man, and in that perfection, to parent each generation that follows so that it may reach its greatest potential. The perfection of man is our only just purpose, not the perfection of our methods and tools, or the ease and efficiency by which we administer them. The man is important, not the rules.

And I will not allow my violence to be misused against any man. And in particular I will not allow the abuse of my fellow citizens or of myself for no other than methodological or procedural reasons, so that another man, an agent of the state, whose only power comes from my given violence, may be absolved of the difficulty and effort expended in justly administering the violence I so entrusted to him. I will not permit men to suffer for another man’s laziness, or folly, when it is my violence at the expense of my fellow men, that he wields in order to obtain such leisure.

And when a citizen is abused by the criminalization of administrative rules, of petty regulatory processes and efficiencies, or of manners and disrespect of the court so that it can maintain its illusion and habituation, or when he is abused by prosecutors who are the worst ideological acolytes and to whose advantage these rules are biased, or when he is abused by the state’s staff, composed of common people endowed by procedure with powers incommensurate with their abilities, and the ability to abdicate responsibility for treating citizens with manners and good service, the state engages in the most heinous form of laziness, and the most intolerable misuse of our violence on our behalf.

Revolutions are not made from single heinous crimes, but from the compounded layering of administrative abuses of citizens. It is not only citizens that must develop habits, but the state, for it is the state who must use greater manners when dispensing our violence, whether that violence is dispensed from the court, the prosecution, the staff, the police, and especially when doing so inspires the understandable and desirable disgust and displeasure of those men unjustly victimized because of the state’s laziness and irresponsibility with our violence.

If the state’s ambition is the restitution of property, or the collection of collection for contract violations, even social contract violations, or procedural errors, for which such fines are simply a form of restitution, then this is its duty, so granted by us. but if it is punishment rather than restitution that the state seeks to render, then I do not, and no citizen should, permit any man to punish me, and will return that punishment in kind. Restitution is the means by which we correct errors, selfish weakness, and human frailties among peers and is the only reason we give our violence to the state to administer on our behalf. Punishment is the submission of slaves to an authority. If you seek to punish me, or my fellow citizens, rather than to give restitution, you seek to enslave us. and I will not suffer your enslavement, nor tolerate the enslavement of my fellow citizens.

Foolish men have come to believe that by legislation, regulation, and dictate, unlike the law, is likened to the laws of physics: that they are tools that override our wisdom and senses, and which if followed produce scientific results. But this is an error. Laws are principles for wise men to refer to, no different from myths, traditions, and stories, to make use of in resolving conflicts among men, providing restitution in the case of loss, so that we may exchange property instead of violence, cooperate peacefully in doing so, and develop specialization so that we may increase productivity in safety, decrease the cost of goods and services to each other because of specialization and competition, and therefore improve the quality of our lives, at lowest cost and risk.

I say this because I love life. I love mankind. I love my fellow citizens. I love each one of them. Fit or not, wise or not, young or old, wealthy or poor, healthy or ill. and I would gladly give my life in their defense, rather than allow someone, in his foolhardy and misguided illusion, to use my violence against them unjustly. And it is that statement, its passion, and conviction, and its promise of consequence, that makes me a citizen and no other.

So, I ask you to understand this appeal: I do not fear you. and you need not fear me if you are just, and care for my people.

But if you are unjust, and do not understand what I have said, then fear me. if you do not fear me then I must make you fear me. I must teach you the accountancy of the state, and its currency of violence. So that you never forget the origin of the violence you wield on our behalf, and in doing so abuse or enslave me or my fellow citizens.

The state must fear its citizens. It is the duty of citizens to maintain that fear. That fear is the fear of violence. I am a citizen by the granting of my violence. The violence that we give to the state, the violence that we possess as men, and is only granted to the state under the condition that it be administered justly, on our behalf, to parent the society, to protect life and property, to resolve conflicts over property, and to administer restitution for conflicts over property. For those reasons and no other.

Our Natural Religion

The Demand for Sovereignty creates a “The Cult of Non-Submission.”

The Creed: 

A European, a Pagan(heathen), a Christian, an Aryan, a Warrior, a Man Transcendent

(Needs  Updating) (  … )

am a Heathen if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Heathen.

I am a Pagan If 1) I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and 2) treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors and archetypes for groups of ancestors whom I may seek to imitate/emulate/aspire to, to whom I may speak in public thanks, and with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 3) if I participate with others of my society in the recognition of debts, the repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of theses to my children, kin, and kith.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

am a Christian if I have adopted the teaching of Christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love and forgiveness to one’s people. 3) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost, 4) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe, and my people.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

am a Warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with joy, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

I am a Saint if …

I am a Woman if  ..

A am a Man if …

I am a European If ….

We are Europeans if  …

We have Transcended Into Gods If …

As far as I know, if I succeed as a Heathen, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

And that is the objective of heroes, demigods, and gods. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

Our Law of Gods

The Law of God, if There Is One Is ‘Win’.

If there is a god, his only law was entropy (dissipation)

The only law of biochemistry is accumulation of information to defeat entropy (memory).
The only law of life is accumulation of information to defeat of entropy and reproduce (reproduction).
The only law of organisms is accumulation of information to defeat entropy and compete with other organisms (evolution).
The only law of sentient organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy and other organisms by cooperation (reciprocity).
The only law of conscious organisms is accumulating enough information to defeat entropy, organisms, and their production, by calculation (instrumentation).
The only law of calculating organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat evolution (eugenics).
The only law of eugenic organisms is accumulation of enough information to defeat entropy and transcend into gods.
Defeat of entropy but accumulating information until we transcend into gods.

The Choice of Relationship with Gods

( … )  what relationshp do we have with our gods?

The Choice of Gods

Europeans are the gods among men, and first among men. Not because we are yet gods ourselves. But because we think, speak, write, work, create, and spread the evidence of God’s words, his hands, and his will in the language of god’s words, hands, and will: Mathematics (geometry), Science, Economics, and Natural Law of Sovereign Men.

For gods must be Sovereign, Omniscient and Omnipotent. And only Sovereign men may transcend into peerage with gods.

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

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

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

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

Our Law Regarding Others

Our Terms of 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, and man is transcended into the gods we aspire to.

Exceptionaless Reciprocity.

( … ) If you do x, we do x.

The Unfit

When you seek any condition other than sovereignty, the natural law of reciprocity, markets in everything, including Nations, then you are UNFIT to cohabitate with Europeans, UNFIT to govern with Europeans, and UNFIT to govern Europeans – whether your UNFITNESS may be genetic, cultural, religious or any combination thereof.

The UNFIT may not rule the Fit. The Unfit may separate from Fit. The Fit may conquer, rule, and domesticate the Unfit into Fitness. But it is a crime against our people, and a crime against mankind to pollute the Fit with the Unfit: whether genetic, cultural, or religious or any combination thereof.

If the Truth is not enough, and therefore law is not enough, then you are weak – and lack the agency necessary for demands of reciprocity between sovereigns. As such you may not rule, or govern, and may have only liberty(capital), freedom(property), and subsidy(insurance), by permission, as the sovereign see fit. And you may purchase liberty, freedom, subsidy, and defense under the natural law of sovereigns, by acts of military and civic defense of the commons, civil contribution by payment of fees, and the reciprocal defense of the subsidy, property, and liberty of peers.

Enemies of The Brotherhood of Men

We talk of rule of law, but Rule of Law is our defense against the dysgenic, parasitic, envious, and evil. We mention sovereignty, and Transcendence. We rarely mention reciprocal insurance of that sovereignty of all men by all other men. And we never mention that reciprocal insurance creates a brotherhood of men – which is the civil society we all desire – and the means by which we enjoy the labor of transcending man into gods.

As for the enemies of the brotherhood of men:

We don’t use the Truth to convince you. You are immoral, dishonest, dysgenic and lack the agency to use the Truth. We use the Truth to convince ourselves, who are moral, honest, eugenic, and possess of agency, that it is right, just and moral, to separate from you – and if not, then conquer, kill, enslave, en-serf, and subjugate you in self-defense – not only of ourselves – but of all we have made, and the future of mankind yet unmade.

We alone possess agency, will to create sovereignty, and demand for transcendence. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for any if we fail.

Our Great Enterprise

—“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.”—José Ortega y Gasset, Spanish Philosopher

This is our next great enterprise. To rid humanity of the Abrahamic falsehoods whether they be supernatural, sophistry, or pseudoscience.

The revolt against us in the ancient world brought about a dark age – we were far too tolerant.

The Abrahamic revolt against us in the modern world using collectivist pseudoscience and postmodern sophism, and the systematic use of pilpul and critique in the reputation destruction of our great civilization – a civilization that has dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of nature. This revolt against civilization has not yet been stopped – we have been too tolerant.

The most intolerant of peoples wins.

We must rule by our law, out of self-defense, and drag mankind kicking and screaming once again by transcendence into the gods we may yet be, in a universe hostile to all but gods.

Transcendence by Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Markets in Everything: the continuous calculation of our ascent into godhood.

Until we know better, the universe is ours to convert into a Garden, Whether the Man’s Valhalla, or Woman’s Eden.

No Law is Higher than This Law – No law can be higher than this law.

Part 2



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 3

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 4


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 5


(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.

Part 6

The Conflict

1. The Conflict


( beginning )

Part 1 – The Conflict

“Power seeks weapons of argument. It is up to some of us to produce the argumentative weapons that those with power seek. The only question is the purpose for which power is sought. And the only moral purpose of power is to deny its use, and thereby to force all into the market where the only power is voluntary exchange of cooperation.”

Ancient European Traditional Law, is the cause of the outsized  achievement and contributions of European civilization: our reason, our science, our technology, our military excellence, and our prosperity are in large part, an outgrowth of our ancient, pre-literate, Testimony and Argument before the Jury, in matters of dispute, wherein one warranties his testimony under threat of perjury, and the punishment therefrom.

This law is very simple. It’s a more precise version of the Golden Rule “Do unto others. as you would have done unto you.

The simple version is “Do not lie, cheat, steal, from us, harm or murder us, shirk your duties to us, or show cowardice in our protection or war.”

The natural law version is: “Limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, of the demonstrated interests of yourself and others, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others external to the action.” 

Where demonstrated interest means anything you have born a cost in not-taking an opportunity for gain or expending effort or resources to invest in the control, use, or investing for the consumption of, without imposing on the same demonstrated interests of others.  That could mean you, your things, your home, your family and friends, peace and quiet in your neighborhood, your norms and traditions, safety in our polity, or security in your country – anything. It could also mean not taking the money of a wallet you find, and returning it so that you invest in the same for everyone. And likewise, punishing those who took the money for not investing in the same for everyone.

Truth before Face, Jury,

( … )

military truth: realism a naturalism, empiricism observable
( … )

Sovereignty – equality before the law – rather than equality external to the law

( … )

That simple law arose because  …. (background)

( … )

And was not codified because it was simple, and because our people lacked bureaucracy and large corporations that generate demand for writing and accounting.

While every intellectual stands on the shoulders of legions of great men who came before him, and while my place among them is small, and an accident of time and space, as far as I know my work in Testimony, completes Aristotle’s project: the unique European innovation of Truthful testimony regardless of subject, regardless of cost, warrantied by due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit, by the demand for consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice by the actors involved, full accounting of cause and consequence, and the most parsimonious (simple) of those arguments that survive. We do not think in these precise terms. It’s my job to provide you with the concepts and language for thinking in those precise terms.

To do that, I’ll need to illustrate a general rule that’s more obvious in the rapid change of modernity, than it was in the slow pace of history:  the advantage and disadvantage of the first generations of innovators in any technology, and the disadvantage and advantage of later innovators upon rather than adopters of technology.

The History of Our Conflict, and Present Repeat of It



Religious Ritual and Myth were the first codification of our strategy and our laws. Wisdom Literature as the second, laws as the third, the physical laws of nature, and the natural law of man as the fourth. The graceful evolution of precision in the face of accumulated knowledge,, and the graceful devolution of precision in the face of remaining ignorance.

Religion as we understand it – as more than burial of the dead and a collection of fireside myths to reduce the discomfort of our evolution of consciousness in the face of ignorance of the world – appears to have evolved into its agrarian equivalent, somewhere south of the black sea, in those marshy areas between the sea and the Euphrates – not only an Eden in real terms for humans (as had been our origins in south-central Africa’s marshes), but at a crossroads of trade between the European, steppe, desert, Indian, and Asian civilizations of Eurasia –  a place somewhat similar to sacred places of pilgrimage, wherein we may not compete (which is the meaning of sacred), places of oracles or the wise, and markets for trade, and places of interest and entertainment.

The Levant. In an age of the first urban civilizations, possible under state control of production by control of irrigation in flood river valleys, with a population of near-universal ignorance and illiteracy, the use of writing, superstition, parable and myth,  administered by priests is an organizational innovation for cheaply educating people to cooperate on the same terms as populations increase in scale, and anonymity arises among even members of the same polity. The great river valleys evolved a conquering aristocracy last, who retained local religious leaders to administrate people and production. This organization allowed the conquering aristocracy to concentrate tax revenues into armies and to pay for the bronze necessary to equip them.

Europe. Conversely, in an age of conquest of territory that was not yet organized like the irrigation of flood rivers,  Entrepreneurial conquest, by contracts between professional warriors, whose families who funded the minority of professional warriors, with production distributed across many people on many farms, where wealth could not be concentrated as it could be in the irrigated flood river valleys, and where the ruling class was decentralized across all these territories, they only needed to educate one another, had to persist entrepreneurial cooperation, by their only means of available cooperation: contract, Aristocracy rose first, and aristocratic administration rose first.

China. In China, the combination of flood river valley, relative ethnic homogeneity, and the near island status of china, surrounded by either a vast desert and mountains to the west and northwest, and southwest, the frozen north, the pacific ocean to the east, they never developed a priestly cast, because at their first development of scale, the warrior class was already dominant, and the ritual was used to constrain the warrior class, rather than to administrate the underclass. So the had many civil wars – just like Europe, and just like Americans, but they had them early and unified china – a vast territory – using an empirical bureaucracy. The Chinese failed to develop politics because with a central military aristocracy, ethnic homogeneity and empirical bureaucracy, Confucius directed the people to a hierarchical family.

India The Indus civilization is lost to us, despite being one of the origins of human civilization and arguably the most peaceful of them – and therefore the one of greatest loss. Today it is a desert of ignorance and despair and has been since the Iranic conquest and subsequent decline under Islamic devolutionary rule. However, the Indians, or more correctly, the Hindustani Civilization, took yet a different strategy, given the vast difference between the Iranic and Dravidian peoples, which was to divide society into a hierarchy of mutual responsibility, using both mythology, and what is lost to the rest of the world as well as India, an intelligent and advanced economic, legal, and political theory that emerged not long after the Greek and Chinese.

Japan. We should not lose sight of the fact that while the greatest remaining civilization in this world is still the Japanese, who have the luxury of an island, ethnic and cultural homogeneity, retained ancestor and nature worship as their religion – only reluctantly having a weak form of Buddhism imposed upon them (which they resisted more so than Scandinavians and Baltics resisted Christianity), and that they are still young enough to have maintained an emperor as head of the family, taken on Chinese bureaucratic rule, and European rule of law, finance, economics, and technology, and are the only people on this planet with the foresight to pay current economic costs in order to preserve their superior civilization under coming industrial automation.

So the Chinese created a vast bureaucratic family; the Indians created a mixture of family and corporation; the Europeans created sovereignty and law, and markets and markets alone. And the Levantines created mysticism to control tribal mutually hateful, tribal peoples, who because of ethnic heterogeneity necessary at the juncture of African, afro-Asiatic (Semitic), European, caucasian( caucasian proper – although they are gone now), Iranic (east caucasian), and Indus, and later Indo-Iranic peoples, the value of trade routes between these peoples, combined with the value of the productivity of the fertile crescent, was offset by the eternal conflict between these peoples over the tax revenues from that trade route and the proto-industrialised farming of the flood river valleys.

We all created the technology we call political. economic. and social orders that were possible for us, given the circumstances available to us. But we are all both benefitting and cursed from the technologies we developed. The primary reason being that it is not possible to easily change status signals in any social order, and it is the status signals that humans most depend upon over time, after short term food, water, and shelter.

This is the difference between our civilizations, and the primary reason the Levant – or rather, the fertile crescent, or in modern terms, the middle east, which is today synonymous with Semitic civilization’s Islam and Judaism, remains a threat to all of humanity, whether African, European, steppe, India, or China: they were the first mover gaining the first advantage, at the cost of most difficulty in adapting to innovations.  There is nothing novel about an individual, a family, a business, an intellectual discipline, an economy, a polity, a nation, a civilization: all individuals and organizations adopt technology and we are as burdened by its late disadvantage as we are by its early advantage.

However, the Chinese captured Sun Tzu for Strategy, Confucius for Middle classes, Lao Tzu for lower classes, and Buddhism for peace-of-mind. The Hindus developed a vast mythological literature that is all but incomprehensible without growing up and ‘living it’ for it is a recipe for ‘living’ not separating from living, or understanding living. Again, we must keep in mind, that although the Indian intellectual tradition eventually waned, they did produce a political-literature equal to that of the Europeans and the Chinese.  The jews by design, and the Muslims by action, have destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world, their arts, their languages, their literature, their institutions, their religions, and reduced north Africa, the Levant, Caucasia, the Iranics, the steppe, to ashes of ignorance, mysticism, poverty, and dysgenia. Those are all lost to us – except for what Europeans were able to rescue upon the conquest of the ottomans, and subsequent failure to complete the colonial project, and the modernization of the Levant, by raising it from Judeo-Muslim ashes. The folly of the european civil war we call the world wars prevented saving the world from the continuation of Semitic barbarism.

Unfortunately, western civilization, like all innovations on existing technologies, was more advanced, and more difficult to develop and to articulate. Our mythos was homer and our hero Achilles, our church the play and tragedy; our mindfulness found in stoicism and epicureanism; our school mathematics and philosophy; tripartism our group organization; our law and markets, and administration, our group strategy; maneuver, a professional warrior caste, technological adoption, innovation, and adaptation our military strategy; and Plato our false prophet, and Aristotle our equivalent of a prophet.

But because it was later, the european-Aristotelian project was far more complex than any other in human history and our success and overextension because of it, led to our failure to complete it. A failure that we have only finishing correction of, at present.

The Experiments In Organization

Aristotle’s project was interrupted by the overextension of the Roman Empire driven by the same Greed as the overextension of the Greek Empire: the capture of tax revenues from the world’s most profitable trade routes in the world’s most densely populated regions: from the fertile crescent to the Indus river, India, and China. Before the age of sail, this was the world’s equivalent of rail, superhighway, and shopping malls. Contrary to Chinese myth, it was the center of the world, even if today it is the center of world conflict.

Just as Alexander brought the despotism, superstition, and corruption of the levant into the west against the wishes of, and earning the anger of, his men, the Romans brought the ancient Semitic deceits, revolts, genetics, and eventually the Semitic dark ages into the west.

Rome had hollowed out Europe by their war of Celtic Genocide, making room for the germanic migrations to release the pressures of another wave of steppe expansions. And while Rome would have recovered from the germanic invasions, the Byzantines saw the opportunity to conquer the western empire and to bring it under its rule, by eradication of the aristocracy, the philosophers, the schools, the arts, and preventing the restoration of western civilization.

The Byzantines were neither Greek(Athenian) nor Roman(Italic), and the eastern Roman Empire neither Greek nor Roman, and the emperors of it were neither Greek nor Roman, but Balkan, Anatolian, and Syrian, and they had built their city on the most valuable toll bridge in the world, and the optimum geographic wall against the Orient: the Bosphorus between Europe and Anatolia – the middle east.

And while Greek was the intellectual language of the age, the people of the region who wrote in that language were neither european, nor roman, nor greek, nor Balkan – they were Semites, who had never had Truthful Speech, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Reason, Meritocracy, nor the trust that comes from ethnic and cultural homogeneity. They were as they had always been, tribal peoples who evolved in today’s Yemen, migrated up to the Tigris Euphrates – the Eden of old – and from these ‘Marsh Arabs’ intermixing with southern Caucasians the geneticists refer to generically but unhelpfully as west Eurasians – including Anatolians and others including the Levantine who now lost to us – and slowly developed Semitic language and culture through thousands of years of serf, and slave labor whose irrigation was administrated by priests, with primitive authoritarian religions, and whos capitals grew from repeated conquest, the taxation of  agrarian production, of continental trade routes, until the next group of people was ambitious enough to replace them by war.

And as Aesop warned the greeks, when Hermes had taken a cart of lies around the world, but when it broke down among the Arabs, they stole all of them leaving the cart empty. The Semitic tribal peoples practiced the only power available to them under their conditions, corrupt hierarchical familism, tribalism, and cunning deceit. Ths familism and tribalism remains today, where lying is an honor, and until recently  – as is still true in Africa – theft is a male responsibility for the service of the family whether it be from nature by hunting, fishing, raiding, robbery, brigandage, mercenary service, or the most profitable of criminal enterprises, corruption in the priesthood and state.

It is among these people that Semitic religions developed – where truth was not the currency of trade, but illiteracy, ignorance, supernaturalism, corruption deceit, usury, and theft a way of life.  The genetics of the age cannot be reconstructed, but in the future, we should be able to determine if the dysgenia present in the Arab world today was as dominant in the middle east of the past.

While the Jews meant to rebel against and undermine the Romans, in order to preserve their usury rather than have it taken over and enforced by Romans. And their thought leadership sought to replace the bible of the Greco roman civilization – Homer and the tragedy of Achilles –  with an underclass rather than an aristocratic hero.  Undermining the great civilizations and their achievements from within.

However, we cannot underestimate the fact of the Christian innovation of equality at least between middle, military, working, poor classes, slaves, and women – who were its primary distributors – was attractive in a time of uncertainty, chaos, and violence, as populations increased under the dominant empires.

Undermining and privatizing commons of their own or of hosts is the reason Jews have in the past, as in the present,  like the gypsies past and present, been unable to hold their own territory. They have evolved to specialize in the means human females use to resist male dominance and accumulation reproductive control, of social, economic and political power, as well as female accumulation of power, as well as the ability to control their children – and the do so by through undermining above them, and half-truths below them, while depending upon males to bear the costs of accumulate cellular damage  on behalf of women and children. “This is hard. The men will take care of it if we complain.” has evolved into “This is hard. Europeans will take care of it if we complain.”

Just as Indo-Europeans and East Asians have raised mankind out of poverty through the institution of property that produces a hierarchy that works whether corrupt or inefficient it survives at the expense of the reproduction of the underclasses. The jews specialized in false promise to women and underclasses, that they can defeat physical law, natural law, and economic law, by undermining the existing structure despite the fact that Jews have no homeland, Christians reduced Europeans from Greco Roman thought and the beginning of the industrial revolution, to ignorant illiterate serfs  and slaves in a dark age we did not administratively recover from until Napoleon, and did not intellectually recover from until the decade prior to the world wars, and those like me seek to extract us from for the rest of eternity.

The Semitic religions evolved for the specific purpose of generating conflict by generating envy, by claiming that the natural distribution of peoples by their market value to one another, in a division of labor, resulting in a Pareto distribution of power, and a nash equilibrium of rewards, and the resulting eugenic suppression of the rates of reproduction of the unproductive, was an act of oppression rather than domestication of only marginally human animals who otherwise made impossible, the direction of proceeds of production to the provision of commons, despite that our production and use of those commons dragged mankind out of animal state.

Judaism evolved to undermine from within, from male migration into the empire, marrying european women, mostly in Italy, then specializing in false promise, baiting into hazard, entrapment, use of the european courts to extract from the people, using the proceeds to invest in rent-seeking, and conspiracy with the state against the people, until opportunity for the recovery of the thefts from the people by baiting into hazard, was made possible by exhaustion of tolerance or by opportunities presented by shocks.

For 2000 years Europeans have suffered Jewish undermining, and systemic parasitism and pretense of moral and spiritual innocence, despite their lack of any contribution to the commons, and despite their admission of their crimes, and reform of their religion, laws, customs, habits.

Christianity evolved to expand undermining from within among the host population, by a psychological false promise to females, and slaves, and baiting men likewise into hazard because of female demand for co-conspiracy in exchange for attention, sex and care. Christianity has slowly evolved into a germanic folk religion of Jesus, and our institutional religions that sought to compete with the state, and the european group have all failed.

Islam evolved to take advantage of the despotic rule of tribes, by selling the false promise of equality to the people, thereby ending the familial corruption of the tribal leaders, and promising peace between them by strict adherence. However, this did not solve the problem of middle eastern genetics, that like sub-Saharan Africa, India, and today’s Muslim southeast Asia, whose environment lacked need for shelter, harsh winters, seasonal farming, to constrain the reproductive success of the people, and instead because of that same climate, created a disease gradient, against which only rapid maturity rather than neoteny, provided survival, thus ensuring only rapid reproduction of the underclasses and the persistence of dysgenia.

For 1400 years Europeans resisted continuous Muslim raiding, slaving, trade route destruction, civilizational destruction, and conquest, ensuring we would not like every other genetic group, every other culture, every other arts-and-letters, every other civilization, fall to the consumption of the rapid expansion of the underclasses under Islam that consumed the genetic, institutional, cultural, knowledge, and artistic capital and reduced to ashes – Judaism is the virus, and Islam the cancer that eventual emerges from the exhaustion of the genetic, institutional, and cultural immune system.

We finally restored enough trade in northern Europe, and restored enough population, to take back Spain despite her persistent lagging the Germanic countries with whom she originally shared the same genetics.  We have restored the Balkans, and Greece, but we have not cured either of the genetic, religious, cultural, institutional, traditional, normative, ethical-moral and habitual disasters of the Muslim invasion – and Europeans once again prevented the Russians from providing aid to their Slavic relations to free them of it, just as the English prevented the Russians from restoring orthodox civilization, casting out the Muslims, and retaking Constantinople completing european civilizations restoration – all because of a demand for maintaining the profits from trade after admission of Jews into the British state, and the conversion of the monarchy’s moral mission for economic profits, into an economic mission regardless of moral ambitions. Just as the Jews have done here in the United States with their NeoConservatism and Libertarianism, both of which, like their Communism and Socialism, are as harmful to western rule of law and the use of markets for the subsequent production of commons, and subsequent suppression of reproduction of the underclasses.


European peoples slowly reversed the Semitic Dark Age, at least aesthetically, beginning in northern Italy; but primarily the Northern Europeans, and particularly the English legal, empirical, and technological and in the Scottish economic and philosophical revolutions. This was largely due to the restoration of literacy under printing, but also the migration of the profitability of trade routes now that Italy could no longer profit from providing the navy to the Byzantines, given the conquest of the Byzantines by the Muslim Turks, and the age of sale ending the value of the overland routes that had been the main trade route between the continents.

And without taxation of those trade routes to create upper cast wealth, and without the european farmlands, the Muslims were dependent only upon their own genetics, own, productivity, and their inability to create government and bureaucracy and rule of law, using truthful speech truthful contract, given the preservation of low trust and Islamic ignorance, and especially Islamic resistance to knowledge of the world as it is, the levant and Muslim civilization was left without it’s life support system and fell to its natural condition of ignorance illiteracy superstition, tribalism, low trust, and perpetual dysgenia

Europeans have continued our work at the completion of Aristotle’s program, despite the French sophomoric, German secular theological, Jewish pseudoscientific, sophomoric, and propaganda revolts, and now Muslim counter-revolutions, which like the Jewish are conducted  by attempted colonization from within – just like the Christian, through underclass invasion of Europe and conversion of women, weak in mind and character, and those underclasses vulnerable to comforting false promises.

Each of those counter-revolutions has brought us centuries of resistance movements, of which, Jewish occupied most of the last century and a half, and Islam most of the present.

The civilizations that have turned the corner from tolerance for Semitic undermining from within are the Chinese explicitly, the Indians just recently, the Africans tepidly, and Europeans today.

This present century of Jewish and Islamic counter-revolutions against civilization will hopefully be the last.

Because once you identify the cause of warfare, it is much easier to fight it, just as once you identify a disease, it is far easier to cure it.  And Semitism in the forms of undermining using the Jewish, Muslim, and less so, Christian methodologies are the antithesis of the Aristotelian project, and European group strategy of markets, truth, and contract as means of cooperation between the genders, classes, nations, civilizations, and races despite our vast differences – even if dragging others into markets

With the end of the Semitic dark ages and the prevention of future Semitic dark ages, human civilizations are not enemies as long as we stay without our civilizational boundaries. Semites and Semitism and the Semitic means of warfare by undermining is the only existential threat to the modern world.  And the Europeans are the only people providing the cancer with means of distribution. So we must save ourselves and mankind by curing ourselves, isolating ourselves, and together with the world, ending the only civilizational cancer that has ever infected mankind. Every other model of every other civilization functions successfully and productively on its own, other than gypsies, jews, Muslims, and those who enable them: the Christians.

This is the lesson of history at the end of each civilization’s arc of development.  Man is not necessarily bad. He merely does what he can. The Semites alone appear to be. And they find a ready market for their lies.

The Central Argument: The Conflict of Civilizations Across Millennia


Part I – The Beginning – Sovereignty, and The Counter Revolution against it. (Bronze Age – Black Sea)

Part IIThe Bronze Age Collapse

Part III – The Counter Revolution Against Reason and Sovereignty.
(Iron Age – Aegean-Mediterranean)

Part IV – The Counter-Enlightenment Against Science and Sovereignty. (Steel Age – North Sea-Atlantic)

The Anglos (Legal Empiricists / Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson),
The French (Literary Moralists / Rousseau) and
The Germans (Literary Rationalists / Kant)
All 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 and sophism 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.)

Examples: 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 attempting to create a secular theology by a 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 Third 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 this time with 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, newly christened consumers, 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 Bronze Age Collapse

The First Semitic Dark Age

The Second Semitic Dark Age:

Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Denialism.


The Enemy’s Strategy – Undermining from Within

1. Martial Reporting, Testimonial Truth, Truth-before-Face, Regardless of Cost to the dominance or competence hierarchy.
The purpose of Jewish Postmodernism is to undermine our first advantage and the source of our achievements.  (a) there is no truth, only power, instead of truth and reciprocity prohibits power, resulting in markets, which benefit all at the cost of the reproduction of the underclasses. (b) political correctness, and anti-whiteness, anti-western male, and anti-western civilization by prohibiting our use of truth before face by inversion, prohibiting truth-before -face, and casting as heroic any and all examples of the dysgenic, and shaming the eugenic, conformity to the eugenic, and conformity to demonstrated merit, excellence that produces the eugenic..

2. Commons(Capitalization) before Self(Consumption)
…heroism… every man a sheriff … using  status as a reward for conformity and disrespect until earned, shaming if violated, and punishment if necessary.

aaa) the demand for preservation and defense of one another’s demonstrated interests in the bodily, familial, physical, share-held, common-held,

aaa) The demand for investment, preservation, and defense of physical, institutional, traditional, normative commons by any display, word, or deed, and disrespect until earned, shaming if violated, restitution if necessary, and punishment upon repeat, and ostracization or execution upon habituation.

aaa) The demand for truth, the punishment of untruth, obscuring the truth, or the suppression of truth as our most expensive investment on our commons, and disrespect until earned, shaming if violated, restitution if necessary, and punishment upon repeat, and ostracization or execution upon habituation.

aaa) The demand for punishment, restitution, and prevention of repetition, for one’s failure of duties of the commons, regardless of cost, disrespect until restitution, shaming if violated, forcible restitution if necessary, and escalation of punishment upon repeat, and ostracization or execution upon habituation.

3. Rule of Law of Tort Regardless of Class.
The Purpose of Jewish Marxism first, and Jewish Postmodernism second, is to undermine our rule of law by false-promise that prosperity is possible by other than western means of continuous competitive innovation under rule of law of reciprocity, individual sovereignty in demonstrated interests in property- in-total

4. Marriage, Family, and Market Eugenics and against the harm of Dysgenics
The Purpose of Jewish Feminism, and Arab Islamism….

5. The Oath before Evidence, Service Before Franchise, Evidence before Influence

5. Truth in the World as it Is, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Agency

6. Industrialization of the Production of Agency, Resulting in the Transcendence of Man into the Gods We Imagine And Conversion of the Universe to A Garden For our Enjoyment
…islam…  jewish non-acheivement

contract free of harm vs contract into harm




So, “The Great Conflict of Civilizations in History is between Masculine Political Physical, Eugenic, and the Masculine Means of Competition and Conflict: Dominance, Integration into the Hierarchy – and Feminine Interpersonal Verbal Dysgenic and the Feminine means of Competition and Conflict: By Undermining, Ostracization, Destruction or Death: the Masculine Hierarchical Pack Holding Territory and Resources and the Feminine Equalitarian Herd Bearing Young and Consuming Resources. And mankind may dislike the eugenics and conservation of the pack, but mankind cannot suffer the dysgenia and consumption of the herd.”

What follows sounds like a prelude to a declaration of war. That’s because it is. 

But one cannot conduct a war, not only for the preservation of one’s civilization –  but to prevent another Semitic dark age for all mankind – unless we correct our own failings in preventing the destruction of the ancient world and the Jewish and Muslim attempts to destroy the modern world, as they did the ancient world.

So to understand what we must do to restore our civilization, and prevent another Semitic dark age, we need to understand where we have failed to resist both the first and the second Semitic dark ages.

Now to answer the questions of our age.

The Causes of Our Failure

What Caused the Failure of The Anglo Tradition of Rule of Law, and The European Tradition of Rapid Adaptation?


Greed of alexander


no wall – the bosphorus was our wall.

1) The failure to reduce the group strategy of european civilization to formal, legal, philosophical, and mythological terms, so that the people practiced by knowledge rather than habit and tradition alone.

2) The success at the overthrow of the evil of the parasitic church bureaucracy, the evil of a hostile Semitic religion to keep people in obedience, illiteracy, ignorance, and poverty, but the failure to restore our ancestral religion and integrate Christianity into it as another character in our folk religion.

3) The failure to develop literacy from the Romans, Greeks, Balkans, or Anatolians, fast enough to defeat conquest by the church, which succeeded with no weapon other than lies and literacy – literacy that they kept from the people – unlike the Romans.

1) The failure to not only defeat Napoleon but to reduce Paris, and it’s political class to ashes for their crimes against not only Europe, not only the world, but against the middle classes (protestants), and the aristocracy.

1) The (understandable) Failure of George to create a separate house of parliament for the colonies (the only examples contemporaries had to work from being Rome and Greece), despite the time delay of transatlantic communication by sail, that would have required devolving power to that new parliament, that the colonists already feared.

2) The failure of the monarchy to seize the assets of bankers, and convert the bank of England to the bank of the monarchy, as did the french (wisely) including that of the Rothschilds. which has been no small contribution to french success at autonomy in Europe despite their hostility to the rest of Europe.

3) The victorian period integration of the jews, and the end of demand for Christianity in all national government. Allowing the Jewish undermining of the empire, by converting it from moral but profitable white man’s burden to purely financial administration and revenue generation. This is what destroyed the monarchy, and Britain.

4) The attempt to preserve economic rather than moral ambitions upon the rise of Germany – the origins of northern european civilization, and the core of european civilization, and our defense against the despotism of the east – by attempting to maintain the balance of powers, and international income, rather than german expansion into its existing colonies in eastern Europe, and the Russian expansion into the recovery of the Balkans from the Muslim invasion, thereby restoring orthodox civilization, and the Bosphorus strait.

5) the postwar tolerance for the integration of the Muslims, repeating the Jewish problem but at much larger scale and from an undomesticated hostile underclass which cannot obtain the promise ego satisfaction (status) of their religion without the destruction of truth, excellence, merit, and eugenics, which produces a natural hierarchical difference between peoples and adherence to it that would always and everywhere lave Muslims at the bottom.

1) The failure to put in place a king and the incentives of monarchies limited to veto, over those of political groups lacking such a judge of last resort. And sowing the seeds of political competition for power with which to violate the traditional law of european peoples the anglos had begun and the Americans had risen to a science.

2) The failure to accept the split between north and south over the issue of slavery because the new western states would then ally with the south, leaving Atlanta the capital of the majority of the continent, leaving the more industrialized (and effeminate, and puritanical) north behind, with a limited domestic market, and leaving the south and the west with a vast world market.

3) the moralizing folly of the north’s oppression of the south and violation of the strategic function of the constitution through the amendment process thereby equalizing rather than returning the slaves – sewing the seeds by which later American peoples would be undermined through the easiest means of division: race.


1) Failure of the church(es) to solve the problem presented by darwin by reforming (splitting) into theological, philosophical, and empirical sects.

2) Failure to create a separate House of the Family when the church failed to reform.


1) The creation of the federal reserve as a private bank rater than treasury, or at least a corporation of shared interests. And then printing fiat money at interest to the people rather than just commercial investment.

2) Entering the war against Germany. Yet again repeating the civil war folly of punishing Germany after world war one when she was in the right all along. and failing to restore a Hohenzollern to the throne.

3) The incorporation of women into a democratic majority rather than their own house, or into the house of the family.

4) The rapid immigration of underclass Europeans, especially Catholics, for the first time after the civil war, and especially thru the depression.

5) The vulnerability of our institutions to marxism pre and post-war because of that failure to create houses for new classes.

6) The vulnerability of our institutions to transition from marxism to undermine western civilization by fomentation of class warfare, to Jewish anti-war, Jewish-multicultural, Jewish-immigration as means of undermining western civilization upon failure of marxism.

7) The failure to move MacArthur into China, therefore guaranteeing a world war three. The failure to move Patton into Russia guaranteeing restoration of european civilization and the unification of Christendom.


1) The inability to continue our historically eugenic norms, traditions, and laws after the Hitlerian tragedy of the second world war, ending the eugenics programs in America.

2) The vulnerability of Christian women that had not had time to develop political traditions or economic institution, to the transition of Jewish marxism into Jewish cultural marxism, to Jewish invented and sponsored postmodernism and Jewish sponsored feminism.

3) The development of radio, television, advertising, and mass media, in concert with the elevation of the classes into middle-class consumption, and the targeting of women who control 70%+ consumer spending by those advertisements.


1) The catastrophic failure of the conservative and libertarian programs to develop a scientific means of arguing their market-eugenic civilization against postwar anti-eugenics, and the female voting population for whom dysgenic reproduction regardless of merit is instinct.

2) The failure to resist the invasion of our civilization Jewish soviet practice, especially under Johnson, and the relocation programs inspired by the soviets that destroyed the development of post-slave civilizations in the south, by destroying their communities, families, and as a consequence their emerging middle class and leadership, thereby ensuring continuous value of resistance to conformity with middle class norms which they attribute to ‘white’ rather than ‘that which is necessary for mutual commercial and economic success’.

3) The failure to crush by any means possible the internal communist undermining from within from the ’50s through the ’70s, and failing to crush the civil rights movement thereby forcing minorities to develop their own culture and institutions before gaining the benefits of those of us that have trained our people to do so.

4) The repeat of the civil war folly, the world war one folly, the world war two folly; with the failure to grant Russia and her satellites immediate entry and participation into nato and the european finance and trade network without cost or penalty, and to provide a Marshall plan for the Russian people’s recovery from soviet corruption. This would have united Russian resources, eastern european populations, and german technology and prevented France from continuing her feminist, Semitic, totalitarian ambitions to rule european continent.


So what its the lesson we learn from our study of history?

1) That European peoples are able to evolve genetically, culturally, economically, technologically, faster than all other peoples because of our legal traditions of: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, excellence, beauty, heroism, duty,  rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, where the market for suppression of parasitism we call the law, and the market for reciprocity in the production of goods, services, and information, evolve as rapidly as possible, thereby advancing productive innovations in each other’s interests, and suppression innovations in parasitism against others interests, in exchange for softly suppresses the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, thereby allowing us to divert proceeds of our production to the commons and the higher returns for all from those commons, the most important of which are truth before face, trust, economic and innovative velocity, and the prosperity, joy, and peace of mind that results from it.

2) That the very reciprocity, truth, and trust we have come to depend upon as our competitive advantage, is easily undermined because of our Christian tolerance for one another’s mistakes, being used as an excuse not to pay the cost of suppression of others attempts at betraying reciprocity, truth, and trust.

3) Therefore we must Increase the Scope of Our Law so that we may develop an additional market in the court for the suppression of irreciprocity, by those who would betray our reciprocity, truth, trust, markets in everything, including the market between the classes for the production of commons.

4) And therefore we shall implement Zero Tolerance for those crimes against our people that have led us to the current conflict, and the current need for a bloody civil war to restore western civilization from the second Semitic systematic undermining of our civilization – both Jewish and Muslim, and the reformation of our Christianity that Christian love and charity is not simply a lie wherein the Christians claim conviction, to cover irresponsibility and convenience, so that the rest of us must bear the cost of their irreciprocity by doing so.

Zero Tolerance is the incremental addition to the law of the european peoples which we claim as sacred and above all others: 

”Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, excellence, heroism, rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, and zero tolerance for the violation of any therein.”

The Remedy

The Failure of American Men To:

1) Occupy the Government. Restore the constitution. Amend it. Devolve the federal government from imperial to continental; to dismiss the house and the senate; to devolve all decisions to state legislatures; and to limit the federal government to original design, as an insurer of last resort in military, judicial(physical property), emergency services, emergency care; in addition to national currencies in the treasury;

2) Forcibly repatriate, or exterminate both the invaders – and the families of those who had assisted in that invasion all directions for three generations by collective punishment; To revoke all citizenship back to the 65 immigration act that made possible the conquest of their civilization, and the overthrow of their government by invasion.

3) To nationalize once again all offices of the state as had been custom until the British victorian abandonment of tradition.

4) To nationalize the federal reserve, banking, and credit systems and unite with the treasury, granting every citizen an account, transferring all credit to the Treasury at zero interests – therefore, ending financial predation and genocide against european Americans by hostile international financial interests.

5) To prohibit undermining by fomentation of conflict between classes, genders, and identities, and to remove access to political power by competitors to european Americans, by limiting them to that status achieved by commercial means, in the voluntary and productive service of one another.

6) To enact cultural reciprocity requiring all religions, political groups, social orders, business, other than Christian and to force a rewrite of and submission of their religious texts before the court in until they are in conformity with our laws of nature, natural law, Christian tradition, our legislation, regulation, findings of law, morals, ethics, manners, speech, and dress ; to tax Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists and any non-christian religion 30% additional taxation per year, prohibit them from any and all property, ownership. Regions are claims to normative and behavioral rights and demands, and claims to superiority to law, truth, and science, as such to deconstruct all religious references, symbols, structures, and prohibit their future reconstruction. There shall be no competition by linguistic,, religious, traditional, cultural, customary, normative,

7) To restore voluntary and involuntary association prohibiting disassociation any for any, thus restoring our civic society by preventing the continuous undermining of civic commercial groups.

8) To update the constitution so that it is no longer open to circumvention by Jewish pilpul and critique (lying) and democratic majoritarianism, or judicial innovation, by clause-by-clause rewrite in strictly constructed terms, from the first principles of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, excellence, heroism, rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, where the family is the central unit of intergenerational production, and the means of persistence of the group strategy of the european peoples, the vastly superior contributions of the european peoples, and the continued wealth and prosperity of the european people for having dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, heat, cold, and the harshness of a nature uncaring for our existence.

The Answer To The Restoration

When european women obtained their ‘Franchise’ via the mechanical innovations of men, the ballot by the permission of men, and birth control by the scientific innovations of men, they put their efforts not into mechanical and scientific innovations, but to attack men, the church, and did so using the ballot and state. And when American women did so, likewise they did not seek achievement, but to attack – but lacking the church or the nobility they attacked men in general.

They destroyed our boys, our schools, our families, and our government – and now western civilization, by the ballot, and their near-monopoly on consumption.

Men create nearly everything, but women consume nearly everything.

Our experiments with democracy rather than rule of law of reciprocity and markets in everything, capitalism rather than rule of law of reciprocity, feminism instead of contractual relations under the rule of law of reciprocity, and free speech, rather than a market for law(reciprocity) order, goods, services, and information.

The Enlightenments
We have seen four European enlightenments that have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, disease, early death, and the deceptions of Priests and Tyrants.

1-Early European/Seas – Truth @2000-1500bc.
2-Ancient Mediterranean Sea – Reason 600bc to 100ad, and
3-Late Medieval Atlantic Ocean – Empiricism, 1200ad to 1700ad, and
4-Truncated Germanic Scientific Enlightenment – science 1830-1940ad
5-The heavily-resisted information revolution. currently in progress.

The First European Enlightenment of truth was opposed by the creation of organized religion as a means of resisting the invention of Aristocracy.

The Second European Enlightenment of Reason was opposed by the creation of monotheistic and Abrahamic deception.

The Third European Enlightenment produced Wealth that all groups sought to oppose by creating create pseudo-moral narratives by which they could privatize those technological gains.

The Fourth European Enlightenment produced wealth that all groups sought political power by which they could privatize those technological gains.

However, each of those opportunities for parasitic gains by various means of deception, were created by a single European technology: Sovereignty which requires Rule of Law of Reciprocity > Empirical (operational) Truth > Jury and produces markets in everything as a result: including association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods services and information(markets), production of commons (govt as market), and Monarchy as judge of last resort.

Western civilization can function only if it is homogenous and high trust. No other people have demonstrated an ability to produce such Civilizations of such creativity and innovation with exclusive reliance on markets governed by the limits of reciprocity that we call natural law.

Why? we do not limit markets to Consumption of our most precious asset: our genes, and our civilization. In this sense, markets not limited to natural law are just as suicidal as any other form of hyperconsumption.

By restoration of the single law of reciprocity that we call natural law, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon all forms of capital, including, genetic, cultural, and traditional. And most importantly, by extension of the demand for warranty of due diligence from goods and services, to speech (information). Free truthful speech is one thing. Free False Speech is not. And we now have the ability to determine whether speech is warrantied against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

We must restore Defamation – both Libel, and Slander – and we must extend defamation, libel and slander protections to Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Truth. That would allow us to prosecute Gossip, Rallying, Shaming, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Obscuring to cover False Promise by sophistry, innumeracy, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, and denial, to conduct Baiting Into Hazard, Profiting from Baiting Into Hazard, Causing inter-group conflict, undermining inter-group markets, causing Tragedies of the Commons, and Cyclical Decline by hyperconsumption of accumulated genetic, institutional, traditional, cultural, normative, and behavioral and informational capital with Unwarrantable Speech – the tool used by women, the Abrahamists, and the underclasses who are too incompetent to contribute to markets.

The subsequent reallocation of capital will cause the greatest reforms since the roman empire, with the greatest results since the industrial revolution. It will generate opportunities everywhere and shift parasitic professions and industries into markets where they are constructive rather than destructive.

And people will self-sort out of the country, into cities where they have below replacement reproduction, and into suburbs and rural areas where they have above replacement level reproduction.  And neither can impose their strategy upon the other.


2. The Histories


Part 999 – The Cycle of History


Grammars of Civilizations Tell Us All We Need to Know

1 – Aristotle Wrote Proto Empiricism: Reason, Naturalism, Proto-empiricism, Law, Calculation. (Truth)
2 – Sun Tzu, and Confucius wrote Wisdom Lit. Lao Tzu crossed the line into the questionable. (Wisdom)
3 – The Indians wrote both mythology and wisdom literature, bordering on political science (Wisdom)
4 – The Persians wrote supernormal and supernatural wisdom literature. (Utopian Universalism)
5 – The Egyptians wrote Ritualism Supernatural (Animism, Anthropomorphism, heathenism ) Doctrine and Ritual.
6 – The Abrahamists wrote Mythology, Rebellion, and Lie and Destruction of all of the above. (Utopian Lie)

Grammars of the Classes Tell Us Something as Well
by John Mark

Aristocracy: War “We will apply violence in whatever way necessary/beneficial – up to and including war conquest and colonization – in order to suppress parasitism upon our productive group/tribe and to keep it from becoming weak or losing (any form of) capital.”

Upper: Law “Due to our wealth and influence we have the opportunity to affect the rules of society in a way that benefits us – sometimes the way we affect the rules can be good, sometimes bad (e.g. buying/owning corrupt politicians to write rules that allow us to privatize gains and socialize losses to everyone else).”

Upper Middle: Science (Econ) “We are looking for a competitive advantage so we like to use science/R&D/innovation to give us an edge. We make economic arguments (often libertarian) because we don’t want our efforts to get ahead to be hindered.”

Middle Class: Philosophy “We wish we had more power than we do, but we feel we have a shot at getting more power or at least affecting those in power, plus we often don’t like what the upper class does when they act in their own interest, so we put a lot of effort into thinking and talking about how to make sense of the world and what those who have more power than us should do (what we wish they would do). (What we often don’t realize is the upper class doesn’t give a rip about what we think they should do.)”

Working Class: Religion “We want/need something to make us feel better about life and give us a safe, reassuring sense of community (we don’t have much else). Religion fits the bill.”

Underclass: Intuition “We are not smart but we don’t know it (Dunning Kruger), and we are low status, hate being so, and don’t know how to (are unable to) fix it, so we instinctively feel the world is not fair and those more successful than us must be cheating somehow. Thus leftism/socialism/communism/SJWism tells us what we want to hear and we are extremely enthusiastic about it because we have no other strategy in life, or ability to come up with or carry out any other strategy.”

By Kurt Stegmann von Pritzwald (Professor of Philology at the University of Marburg)
(Sociologus, Vol.V, No.1, 1955, pp.56-67)


During the Early Neolithic period there roamed, over the multilingual area inhabited by Northern, Corded-Ware, and Banded-Ware folk, companies of men who used horse and wagon to establish a certain degree of communication. To make themselves understood by the local populations they used a Semi-Indo-European lingua franca. This improvised language was characterized by infinitives, with non-Indo-European and Indo-European components. From these “hosts” there separated linguistically a narrower group which strove for the observation of a “proper,” by sifting the vocabulary and fixing sentence structure. The members of this language community recognized one another through the adherence to “proper form” which led to a still closer union. With this, linguistic expression had transcended the purpose of communication pure and simple, and the societal function of language came into play. Even if we retain the thesis of a compact Indo-European cradle-land, we must assume the existence of an aloof group as the originator of the “proper form” of the Indo-European “high” language. It is more likely that this group became aware of its own singularity distinguishing it from the rest of society, and managed to establish itself as the bearer of a colonial or other position of power.

The development of High-Indo-European forms is based on the sentence, a characteristic which distinguishes it from the isolating method of the Semi-Indo-European language mixture. This led to a well designed style appropriate for communicating deeds and reports, a step on the road to the epic style which marks the entrance of nations into history. Through the distinction of agent and action, noun and verb, subject and predicate, this style transformed a sensation language into a formative language of civilization, guided by definite rules, to which the far-reaching bands of warriors had to conform when rendering account of their travels and adventures. The relationship between the Semi-Indo-European lingua franca and the High-Indo-European upper-stratum language reminds of Homer. Homer forced the colonial jargon language of the Greek dialects into the forms of epic art.

Before the beginning of the Bronze Age the report style had already developed into the language of the upper social stratum. This “high” language, distinguished by important ethical content, became the pattern for grammatical development. The upper stratum used this means of expression to foster an aristocratic ethos and a firm mastery of the environment. In the social realm it created the patriarchal family order and a mixed authoritarian-cooperative power structure.

Magic, Indo-Europeans and The Taming of The Mass

From an anthropological perspective, traditional magic practices were perfectly adequate to a certain level of development. In this sense, ‘authentic’ magic aims at clarifying a psycho-technique (self-discipline) with a specific goal in mind; it guides man into the appropriate form for a given project. It either prepares man to bear without excessive anxiety the hostile pressures of a universe that he does not yet control, or it helps give free reign to certain instincts and repress others, so that he can accomplish more successfully a certain undertaking.

With this type of magic, man had learnt to manipulate himself. He had given himself a self-chosen nature, and had succeeded in his hominisation. Hence, authentic magic constitutes the original ‘know-how’ of human self-domestication, and the domestication of the psyche by consciousness, organised by a science that was born through reflection on the know-how of animal nature.

Magic degenerates as soon as it claims to find application to a relation diverse from the one instituted between consciousness and psyche: that is, between man (as living being) and the world (as event), under the wholly imaginary pretext that the human psyche participates in the cause of that event. It then leads to a cosmological theory that is entirely unfounded. On the other hand, where this reflection allows him to isolate the true terms of the ‘magic relation,’ man acquires an exact description of himself and his circumstances, and of the position he occupies within the living world. He transforms himself, from then on, into the domesticator of the living world.

Hundreds of thousands of years after hominisation, it was with the Indoeuropean/Neolithic Revolution that another type of man emerges. Having learned what ‘moves’ himself, man tries now to ‘move’ animals and plants according to his wishes and needs. As far as social animals are concerned, he intends to take on a directive role, becoming the leader of the pack. Similarly, having attained a superior consciousness—thanks to the correct understanding of magic—he presents himself as aristocracy in relation to the rest of society and affirms his own sovereignty.

With the advent of Indoeuropeans, man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. Hereafter, ‚religion’ comes to be the ideological system that will serve to ‘tie fast’ society and subject the group to a certain influence.

Our Original Origin

‘Indo-European’ is the term used to designate a language spoken at the beginning of Neolithic times and ‘discovered’ during the nineteenth century via the new discipline of linguistics—linguistics becoming a proper science in the process.1 Since every language presupposes users, the discovery of the Indo-European language represented the discovery of a group of speakers—the Indo-Europeans—and consequently of a people and a civilisation whose true characteristics were brilliantly delineated by Georges Dumézil, among others.

We know today, with some certainty, what was entirely unknown at the end of the eighteenth century: that an ‘Indo-European’ people lived in the remote past,2 and that their language was the direct ancestor of a great number of languages spoken in both ancient and modern times. The Romance, Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, Hellenic, Slavic, and Indo-Aryan languages were and are among the most important of these languages. We also know, with no less certainty, that the Indo-European heritage has lent conformity, in a decisive way, to the cultures that gave birth to ‘European civilisation.’ This heritage still carries, at least through its linguistic credentials, a certain ‘world outlook’ which, although fragmented in its substance today, remains active as a constraining force of representation, giving structure to our mental framework.

Through the semantic roots evident in all the derivative languages, a certain way of life can be reconstructed—as well as the geographical position occupied by Indo-European speakers during the unitary phase preceding the first dispersal, probably around the third millennium BCE.

Anthropology and ethnology indicate that these people manifested a precise, characteristic racial physiognomy. Such a physiognomy anticipated the present Europid race in its varieties, concentrated today in Europe and in the countries whose populations migrated thither from Europe. It may still be detected today in particular strands of the populations settled in present Iran, and in northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.3

From the intersection of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, and other related sciences, it is possible to depict this people—hunters of white skin, tall stature, and dolichocephalic crania. A people emerging from the fogs of the last glaciations, and coinciding with the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution and the introduction of agriculture into Europe, formed a unified civilisation which extended from the Baltic and Northern Seas, from the Danube and from the Rhine to the Königsberg-Odessa line. This civilisation was based on animal farming, fishing, and navigation, developed an advanced artisanship, cremated the dead, and used a supple, sophisticated language to express abstract thought and convey nuance. From the forests of Northern Europe, its descendants initiated the greatest of human adventures. In a succession of conquering waves they moved across the world.

From analysis of the religious, politico-social, ritual, and other generic cultural traditions extant in the historical civilisations born of this common Indo-European matrix, it is possible to form a global picture of our ancestral past—and roots.
Georges Dumézil devised the term trifunctionality to describe the character of Indo-European society—which comprised three main groups, corresponding to three distinct functions.4

The first function was associated with sovereignty—regal and priestly—and with everything that concept implies: power, knowledge, wisdom, magic, leadership of the people—and, consequently, politics, law, religion, and representation of the community abroad.

The second function may be traced back to war, struggle, effort, and physical strength in all its peaceful and bellicose aspects: defence and military requirements, sport and energy. It incarnates heroism, personal courage, spirit of sacrifice, readiness to action, and bravery.

The third function finds its original principle probably in the idea of fecundity—human and animal—to which the ideas of love, voluptuousness, and pleasure were later added. It is related to agriculture, herding, and the crafts; to economic production and wealth—and is identified with the idea of quantity and large numbers. This function was governed by the principles of temperance, moderation, and limitation.

Mythology was divided in the same way: each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it, and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group.

Our ancestors practised not only a division of labour into three orders, or of society and the pantheon into three classes: the three functions present in man and in the cosmic order have been bound to innumerable facts and notions.5 Those ancestors also theorised on this division and produced an ‘ideology’ (Dumézil’s term): a global outlook on the forces creating and sustaining the world—on the balance, tension, and conflict necessary for the good functioning of the cosmos and the polis, the societies of gods and of men.

But surely every human group must experience the need to be led, defended, and fed; every individual must satisfy the needs of heart, stomach, and spirit. Dumézil responded repeatedly to those sceptics contesting the originality of the Indo-European trifunctional system. He argued, for example:

In the ancient world, neither Egyptians, before they entered in contact with the Sea Peoples, nor Sumerians, Elamites, and Hurrians, nor Mesopotamians before the dominance of the Kassites in the area, nor in general Semites, Siberians, or Chinese have ever had a similar structure as the dorsal spine of their ideology and social life. One observes either undifferentiated organisations of nomadic tribes, where everyone is at the same time combatant and farmer; or sedentary theocratic organisations, where there is a king-priest or a divine emperor and a humble and homogeneous mass of subjects; or groups where the witch doctor, despite the fear his craft may inspire, is just one specialist among others.6

The structural, descriptive notion sketched above derives all its significance from the framework provided by a peculiar set of values. According to the Indo-European ideology, the good functioning of a society implies a situation of dynamic balance between the three classes or castes, corresponding to the three functions of the sovereign/sacral, the martial, and the economic. In contrast to our modern Western model, the economic sector was specifically subordinated—as viewed from a hierarchical rather than a functional perspective—to the other two functions. In this sense, it is legitimate to describe our present Western society as characterised by a pathological hypertrophy of the economic function, and the values and spirit that sustain it. The quantitative perception of social facts from which, along with much else, the modern idea of political democracy originates, here finds its source.

It would be easy—at least given the reductionist mentality that impregnates our culture today—to infer that the Indo-European ideology expressed a sort of contempt for the values of productive work, wealth, fecundity, or pleasure: that it practised exclusion from, and subordination to, the warrior and sovereign functions of economic activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Indo-European ideology, the three functions are not reducible to each other: they are equally indispensable, and they have equal social dignity and full autonomy in their respective areas. The third function had a distinct identity and role that was as important as those of the other two: it had its own gods and participated in its own way in community life.

This predilection for differentiation was also reflected in the horizontal subdivision of society, which was structured not as a division between masses and individuals, but as a people whose genius, personality, and aristocracy were the sources of expression, conception, and representation. Indo-European culture exalted such values as loyalty, sense of belonging, and distinction of roles. These values constituted the ethical, psychological, and political foundations of a system that favoured the assertion of such natural principles as hierarchy, selection, and territoriality, rather than their denial.
Hence, from remote times, political and social life manifests itself as extremely articulate—in contrast to those theocratic state organisations where the position of subject is essentially that of king’s slave7—and based on the participation of all members of the social body, as representing the aggregate of free men. This organic participation occurred at different levels, starting with the *genos (great exogamic families) and *wenos (the community created by the alliance of several *genos) and proceeding to an assembly of *pateres, who would choose a primus inter pares to accomplish the function of *reg-s (king) whenever there was need to find unitary guidance and representation for the whole people.

The distinction of roles was also expected in respect of gender. The culture of our ancestors was indeed patriarchal, patrilineal, patronymic, and patrilocal. But as with the three functions mentioned above, this gender division sought to articulate a society which claimed to be complete. In this context, women were not only admitted as members of society but honoured in their particular domain:8 the relationship between the sexes was seen through a prism of complementarity, as expressed in the androgyne myth. This notion probably derives from a sense that a world view based on difference and inequality is one also based on the acknowledgement of diversity. Accordingly, the ‘other sex’ was considered an enrichment, rather than a ‘curse’ arising, allegedly, from ‘original sin.’

Women were fully integrated within the socioeconomic and cultural structures of the community and performed, among other tasks, the important one of transmitting the tradition. Similarly, sex was experienced as part of the dialectics of joy and sacredness—an attitude that would later be defined as quintessentially pagan. Marriage was founded on distinction of roles, on honour, loyalty, and reciprocal respect. Sexual freedom was not repressed or negated by the idea of sinfulness, but regulated by a natural sense of dignity, by a consciousness of the role one was expected to play in society, or by eugenic principles. The wife’s role was not perceived as inferior to the husband’s: there was no single, universalist, egalitarian, reductionist role to which everyone had to submit, regardless of sex, religion, or social position—in short, regardless of identity.
It is significant that Indo-European ‘patriarchy’ contemplates the active and necessary participation of women in family rites, while Judaism and the religious customs imported into Europe with Christianity forbid it: e.g., the consecration of the Eucharist. From the Jewish-Christian point of view, the mere notion of priestess is blasphemous.
Finally, to the Indo-European world applies the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures. While the latter are defined by a ‘morality of sin’ based on a system of revealed dogmas, the former bases its ‘ethics of honour’ on the idea of self-respect, implying a direct bond between the individual and his socio-cultural environment. Shame and glory are the two main forces of social pressure and repression, as opposed to guilt cultures where that role is enacted by the notion of sin. While in guilt cultures, the blame is typically objectified by reference to a third supreme party—which is why they are linked to a universal and metaphysical ideological system—the Indo-European world view is inexorably bound to the notion of a plurality of gods. It expresses mythically both a radical anti-universalism and a cohabitation of men and gods: it presumes both a oneness and ontological autonomy of reality, and a sacredness of world and nature. The divine impregnates all nature, including its human manifestations: for example, it is involved in art, excluding any manifestation of iconoclasm; and politics, rendering absurd a separation between church and state, or between civic and religious duties. Specifically, the divine is not extrinsic to man, but represents a dimension achievable through transcending the self—a concept captured in the exemplary figure of the hero, typically one of mixed human and divine descent, and founder of his own lineage.

This is because the Indo-European gods do not consider men to be their rivals. The great deeds of human beings aggrandise not only humans, but also the gods. Far from men being forbidden to achieve renown for themselves, such is the very thing that justifies their existence and earns them a claim to eternity. ‘My journey home is gone, but my glory never dies,’ says Achilles.9 This is also declared in one of the more famous maxims from the Edda: ‘Men die, as do beasts, but the sole thing that does not die is the renown of a noble name.’10 Whereas the Bible displays its intention of limiting human sovereignty by a series of prohibitions, the religions of ancient Europe bestowed a heroic dimension on the man who exceeded his abilities and thereby shared in the divine. Where the Scriptures look on life with a blend of distrust and trepidation, paganism in its beliefs hypostatises all the ardour, intensity, and pulsation of life. It is easy to understand how members of these cultural types—Indo-European and Jewish-Christian—viewed each other as atheistic.

Based on the vigour and expansionistic strength conveyed by this ideological and conceptual patrimony, Indo-European culture became the matrix of all historical European civilisations. Its latest offshoots include ourselves.



Heroism Is Our Group Strategy

Man is a social animal. In order to realize himself, he must create both himself and his society. In relation to this self-creation, individuals incarnate and actualize different values. The ‘mass man’ and the ‘founding hero’ may be considered the extremes within the sociological parameter that measures the historical value of human beings. The former is a ‘non-humanised man,’ whose drives are not directed towards a culturally determined objective. Incapable of cultural self-determination, the mass-man ends up as determined from time to time, and at random, by chance or by contact—especially human contact. He follows without knowing it. On the other hand, the founding hero, or self-actualized man, projects an idea about himself and the society to which he belongs—and realizes it. He is a creator of cultural facts. To varying degrees, all individuals partake of both sociological categories. This allows, within a given culture, the organization of society and the establishment of a dynamic game between poles.

The pre-existence of a given culture offers the chance for the individual where mass values predominate. Given social traditions and education, he may be brought up to repeat the process of human self-creation offered in the received cultural model: he may incarnate a social type, hence becoming integral to the social group, the people. The repetition of this process of integration, codified in each culture, corresponds in its simplest form to the rites of initiation. In modern societies, this process is organized through education systems and is reinforced by the techniques of social conditioning.

It might be thought that the individual in whom the creative value prevails would, logically, be led to reject the culture and values he inherits in order to affirm his own originality. However, this occurs only in cultures that are old, decrepit, unadapted to historical necessity. In young, vital cultures where the humanizing force of the social type is maintained, the creator takes upon himself both the preservation and improvement of this type: he endeavours to raise it by his own example, hence affirming himself as a person.

Furthermore, in a young culture the model remains wide open and appears as process still in progress. It is perceived as remaining susceptible of new interpretations so long as there are domains of human activity in which the model is not yet incarnated. The creative value is the quintessentially historical value. And this is why in every age the founding heroes—the geniuses, the great artists—are venerated. It is also why more value is given to an original work than to its copy, even where the latter is in every respect identical.

Personality is not the extolling of individual selfishness; on the contrary, it is the highest expression of a society, of which it represents the consciousness and superior will. Personality aspires to realise the highest idea it has of itself, and of the other—that is, of its own society. Hence, in a particular historical moment, personality proves itself by responding to the socio-cultural imperative of that time; it is recognised, accepted and followed precisely because it satisfies the unconscious aspirations of a community and of a people. There is constantly a component of sacrifice in personality, and in some cases this may involve extreme renunciation. That is why whoever offers himself up for the welfare of a society or of a culture becomes heroised. By taking on himself society as a whole the hero places himself, rightfully, at the pinnacle of the social hierarchy.

When a culture no longer fulfils this human need, a chaotic mass society is formed and its members—devoid of a cultural ‘type’ with which to identify—become a crowd, a mob. Then comes the time when a founding hero, aware of the decomposition of his own society and culture, may emerge and undertake the required revolution: an act of conservation through which human nature, mortally menaced, may be preserved.

Areté – Transcendence

The tragic urge to self-overcoming (transcendence) may be identified as the only way man and his presence in the world may be ennobled, and this was the primary element of traditional Aryan ethics. It is what the ancient Greeks called areté, the quest for excellence: the act of living up to one’s full potential.

For Aristotle, the doctrine of areté included the following virtues: andreia (courage), dikaiosyne (justice), and sophrosyne (self-restraint). In Greek mythology, Sophrosyne was a Greek goddess. She was the spirit of moderation, self-control, temperance, restraint, and discretion. She was considered to be one of the good spirits that escaped from Pandora’s box and fled to Olympus after Pandora opened the lid. The complex meaning of sophrosyne, so important to the ancients, is very difficult to convey in English. It is perhaps best expressed by the two most famous sayings of the Oracle of Delphi: ‘nothing in excess’ and ‘know thyself.’

Since Propertarianism recovers and transfigures the founding myths of Indo-European culture, when it comes to specifying its particular tenets such features as the following might be listed: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; the importance of honour (‘shame’ rather than ‘sin’); a heroic attitude towards life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralisation of the world, beauty, the body, strength, and health; the rejection of any ‘worlds beyond’; and the inseparability of morality and aesthetics.

The highest value for an Aryan ethics undoubtedly lies not in a form of ‘justice’ whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but in all that may allow man to surpass himself. Since to consider the implications of life’s basic framework as unjust would be palpably absurd, such classic antitheses as noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honourable vs. dishonourable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy come to replace the antitheses operative in a morality based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful.

Promethean Fire: Aryans, Semites & Science

The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some manifestations of the technological wizardry that has shaped life on the planet today—particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution. One crucial—and typically ignored—feature of this astonishing technological revolution is that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Europeans. One of the particular traits of Indo-European languages, already noticed in the nineteenth century by such philologists as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Ernest Renan, was their implicit capacity for abstract thought—a precondition of any sort of scientific theory and praxis. Renan was also the first to establish a connection between religion and ethno-geographical origin. He contrasted a ‘psyche of the desert’ found among Semites—’the desert is monotheistic’—with a ‘psyche of the forest,’ characteristic of Indo-Europeans whose polytheism appears to be modeled on a changing nature and a diversity of seasons. He observed that the intolerance of Semitic people is an inevitable consequence of their monotheism. Indo-European peoples, before their conversion to Semitic ideas, never regarded their religion as absolute truth. This is why there is found among these peoples ‘a freedom of thought, a spirit of critical inquiry, and individual research.’ Techne (technological development)—the appropriation and control of a surrounding environment via technology—may be considered a trait defining the ‘specifically human.’ It is an inevitable companion to the progress of human knowledge; however, it also describes something that has been devised and developed in a peculiar way only in the Indo-European context: from the Battle-Axe culture war chariot to the laser and the moon rockets designed by Wernher von Braun. In particular, modern technology is closely linked to the West—to a culture underpinned by a ‘compromise’ between Europe and Judeo-Christianity. Following the Christianisation of Europe, paganism survived underground in several forms. It survived in folk beliefs and traditions; in ‘heretical’ trends inside or on the margins of official religion that have extended even into the present; and in a collective unconscious that finds release chiefly in music, and in science and technology. In this sense, science and technology may be interpreted as arising from the impact of long-standing monotheistic repression of the European collective subconscious, and from the contradictory process of secularisation and emancipation to which this repression gave rise, and which began with the Renaissance. What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger…Let us remember the names of the American rockets and space programs of von Braun’s times: Thor, Atlas, Titan, Jupiter, Delta, Mercury, Apollo. None was called “Jesus,” “Forgiveness and Love,” or “Holy Bible.” In Man and Technics, Spengler wrote: ‘To build a world oneself, to be oneself God—that is the Faustian inventor’s dream, and from it has sprung all our designing and re-designing of machines.’ The Jewish-Christian tradition—and the ‘grand narratives’ it produced—is explicit in the rejection of the Faustian temptation. Nietzsche remarks in The Antichrist that ‘such a religion as Christianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which goes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must be inevitably the deadly enemy of the wisdom of this world, which is to say, of science.’ Man must repress his ‘pride’: he may not eat the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge, lest he create instruments competing with the perennial nature created by God. It is sacrilegious behavior, as the myths of the Golem and the tale of Frankenstein remind us. As in the past—when opposing dissection—the Church now condemns contraception, genetic engineering, and biotechnological research in general. It is not difficult to see why egalitarianism is anti-Promethean. Every new advance in technology is an advance in respect of the ability of some to control others. If one considers, as in the Bible, Rousseau, or Marx, that it is an ethical duty to condemn the exercise of control or power—the domination of man by man—then it is easy to perceive that such epochal mutation as our societies are experiencing will produce new vertical division between man and man, and between society and society, just such as the Neolithic Revolution provoked: namely, (1) differentiation between the body of consociates and the aristocracies that came to exercise political power, creating cultural forms and directing community life; and (2) the fact of certain societies coming to dominate others. Any dream of independence and self-determination—individual or collective—any sort of political, economic, or cultural sovereignty—may be realised only through the technical means necessary for such ambition. Science is a domain which the European mind has monopolised, and technology a tool that can make man into a god. These must be especially valued by Europeans if they are to mount a primordial, Faustian response to life which can recapture and transcend the Indo-European outlook for post-Neolithic man.

Yoga & Indian Philosophy. a Bio-Cultural Diagnosis.

I. Instant Enlightenment

Consider the following facts about the spiritual landscape in the USA: contemplation is enjoying its biggest revival since the Reformation; science and spirituality are usually seen as allies and combined into ’empirical spirituality’ or ‘evolutionary mysticism’; elements of Buddhism and Hinduism have become so mainstream that Newsweek declared in 2016 ‘we’re all Hindus now’; half of Americans claim to have had a mystical experience; “Inner Engineering: A Yogi’s Guide to Joy” by Sadhguru became a ‘New York Bestseller’ two years ago; Yoga has become so prevalent that approximately 14.9 million Americans (most commonly women) are estimated to incorporate some form of this practice into their lives; and Yoga practitioners expend up to 5.7 billion dollars per annum on yoga classes, products, and retreats.

One would say that most people, though nominally adherents of an Abrahamic religion, actually embrace what Aldous Huxley named ‘Perennial Philosophy’: a type of Christian-Hindu syncretism which he used to offer as remedy against the ‘Brave New World’.

The trend is similar in the rest of the Western world. For example, 15.7 million Germans are currently practicing yoga or are at least interested in starting to practice; and Yoga Day, an international initiative of India enthusiastically supported by all EU governments, is celebrated in most European capitals since its inception in 2015.

The current embrace of eastern spirituality, the combination of science and religion, and the Yoga boom began in earnest with the Californian counter-culture. Aldous Huxley and a group of three other British expatriates played a key role in its development: Christopher Isherwood, Gerald Heard and Alan Watts. All four were public school-educated English gents, emerging from the remains of the British Empire.

It is significant that the latest Yoga fad had begun with the hippies and the Flower Power. On previous occasions, interest for Eastern mysticism has always coincided with moments of dejection or despondency in Europe.

Although it was during the sixteenth century that Europeans became aware of the existence of the old sacred books called ‘the Veda’, when Jesuit missionaries began to learn Sanskrit, the classical language of the Brahmans, it was not until the nineteenth century – once the curiosity of the learned world had been roused not only in England, but especially in Germany – that India became a ‘Paradise of Philosophers’ in the imagination of Western man.

After the disaster of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, Schopenhauer was the first to transpose into Kantian language the metaphysics of the Upanishads, which he was wont to describe as ‘the consolation of my life’ (The World as Will and Representation).

Amid the carnage of I World War, Keyserling opposed in “Travel-journal of a Philosopher” the Hindu quest for inner perfection against the Western obsession with productivity and Romain Rolland thought to have found in Gandhi, Ramakhrisna and Vivekananda a universal gospel which would reveal, beyond any antagonism of race, ideology or religion, the ‘polyphonic unity of all men’. Herman Hesse, in “Siddhartha”, contrasted the spiritual values of the East with the utilitarian techniques of the West.

II. the Grammar of Intellectual Fraud

Although the Indian Subcontinent has produced a broad range of religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) and speculative philosophies, they are all linked by the textual resources, cosmology, concepts, rituals, and practices of Yoga.

The chronology of earliest texts describing yoga-practices is unclear, but Hatha Yoga texts emerged around the 11th century. The ‘Hatha Yoga Pradipika’, written in Sanskrit, is among the most influential surviving texts. It conflates folklore and myth, magic rituals, claims to medical knowledge, and psycho-physiological techniques. These practices and disciplines have remained unchanged for at least 1000 years and are still taught by the diverse gurus and more or less official institutes of Yoga which pullulate around the world.

Among them:
– Alcohol abstinence and fasting, non-violence, chastity and dietary restrictions;
– One-pointed focus and intent pursuit of one object (ekagrata);
– Static physical position to reduce physical exertion to a minimum (asana);
– A set of breathing techniques where the breath is intentionally altered (pranayama);
– Nosetip gazing (nasikagra drishti);
– Contraction of the perineum in order to facilitate the retention of semen during ejaculation (mula bandha);
– Chanting of magic syllables, words or phonemes (mantra).
According to its masters, the purposes of Yoga were: a/to heal mental and physical disease; b/ acquire magical powers (siddhis); and c/accomplish ‘the mystical union’ (samadhi).

A/ Healing
– Western medicine has been in progress since the times of Avicenna, who was a contemporary of the author/s of ‘Hatha Yoga Pradipika’. Is it unfair to compare the steady increase of life expectancy around the world, driven in not a small part by the advance of modern medicine, with the therapeutic results obtained by Ayurveda, the traditional yogic medicine?
Bringing to mind the Aristotelian distinction between doing wrong by omission and by commission, Australian philosopher and bioethicist Julian Savulescu reminds us in “Medical Ethics and Law”: ‘To delay by 1 year the development of a treatment that cures a lethal disease that kills 100,000 people per year is to be responsible for the deaths of 100.000 people, even if you never see them’.
For example, when Gandhi’s wife was stricken with pneumonia, British doctors told her husband that a shot of penicillin would heal her; nevertheless, Gandhi refused to have alien medicine injected into her body, and she died.
– Many studies have tried to determine the effectiveness of Yoga as a complementary intervention for cancer, schizophrenia, asthma, and heart disease. The results of these studies have been at best inconclusive.
– According to the latest reports, meditation is no better than watching TV.
– Veganism may be described as ‘postmodern nutrition’. It is often pure ideology, biased activism, and almost always not supported by medical facts (limited nutrients during pregnancy and growth). Looking between the lines at vegan arguments, one finds a pathological attempt to avoid any kind of suffering: the pacification of all life. The fact is that we simply would not be here as a species if we had not eaten meat. Our brains would never have grown to the size they are unless we had access to the protein which meat provides.

B/ Power
‘Siddhis’ are spiritual, paranormal, supernatural, or otherwise magical powers, abilities, and attainments such as knowing past lifes, knowing the minds of others, reducing or expanding one’s body at will, teleportation, levitation by counteracting the pull of gravity, or walking on water. As the reader of these lines can imagine, none of these phenomena has ever been empirically verified.

It is true though that some gurus manage to regulate their sympathetic nervous system in astonishing ways, which could indicate the absence of a clear line of demarcation between the voluntary and involuntary functions of the nervous system. A team of scientist from the University of Cambridge found in 2014 that half of Western Australia’s indigenous population has a genetic mutation that helps them control their body temperature. This genetic mutation might have spread across the Indian Subcontinent, carried by ancestral Austro-Asiatic populations, and might be behind many of these yogic feats.

C/ Liberation
But the ultimate goal of Yoga is to reach ‘samadhi’, associated with liberation from sorrow, suffering and ‘samsara’ (birth-rebirth cycle). It is described alternatively as a trance or ecstatic state, as ‘deep dream in which there is no dreaming’ (i.e. a lethargic state) or as ‘super-consciousness, a non-dualistic state in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object’.

A state of pure consciousness in which there is neither subject to experience nor object to provide content is a good example of what Bertrand Russell used to characterize as ‘metaphysical nonsense’. The experience of ‘samadhi’ resembles rather a state of unconsciousness, spiritual hibernation.

III. Mind the Bollocks

It may be argued that many people in the West just take Yoga classes because they are good for their body and decrease their stress level.

But is it possible to cherry-pick the physical exercises and discard the rest, remain immune to a philosophy which teaches to be satisfied with not understanding the world as a great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence?
The only measure of a world-view is the economic conditions of the population which created it.

Central to Hindu philosophy and Yoga is the idea that the divine exists in all beings, that all human beings can achieve union with this “innate divinity”, and that seeing this divine as the essence of others will further love and social harmony.

A short visit to India is enough to destroy any romantic illusions about gentleness and brotherly love. Beggars and street people spread throughout the streets of Calcutta and many other cities. In Mumbai, one cannot but be shocked by the aerial view on the world’s biggest slums.

Belief in karma assumes that everyone is rewarded or punished for things they did in their previous life. The traditional division in castes, social rank, economic wealth, social success or state of health are justified because predetermined by the laws of karma. Hence there is hardly any support for reform.

Any notion about the harmlessness of Yoga can be dispelled by this bizarre report of “India Today”: ‘Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, an Indian pop-star and tele preacher with a reported wealth of more than $50 million, is being investigated after he allegedly manipulated around 400 men to get their testicles removed. The victims were told that only those who get castrated will be able to meet God.’

IV. Deconstructing Reality

Any major philosophy, no matter how complex, can be classified as dualistic or monistic.

Monism claims that there is only one world and one way of apprehending it, through our senses. Reality is an absolute. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use. It also holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge.

Dualism proposes the existence of two worlds hierarchically organized: an inferior, physical, and material world, irredeemably unworthy; and the superior, metaphysical, transcendental world, the source of our ‘Ideas’. Experiencing is just an inferior way of knowing; superior, proper knowledge is obtained through mysticism and manipulation of speculative concepts. Knowledge can be acquired by non-sensory, non-rational means, such as faith, revelation, ESP, intuition.

Dualist systems sometimes present one part of reality as just the reflection – or the superstructure – of another aspect of reality; or argue that body and mind belong to different realms. Indian philosophy can be classified as dualistic: this world is just mere appearance, a mirage (Maya) opposed to the World of Pure Being (Brahma). Its practical conclusion is the rejection of the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘not-I’, the negation of individuality, just an illusion. Tat Tvam Asi.

All these dualistic systems are in fact expression of the same denial of life. And none of them has at least the merit of being consistent. After all, one can obtain liberation from this world by committing suicide, the philosophical action par excellence. This lack of logical coherence and internal consistency reflects a state of mind or disposition rather than an elaborate abstract philosophy. A genealogical approach, by inquiring as to the origin of certain ideas, of which type of man they are expression, what it is they reflect, and to where they lead, will be more fruitful. Any world view is inescapably linked to a particular outlook on man, the world, and history; and, in its turn, it depends on the mental constitution—itself anchored at a biological level—of the particular people by whom it was created.

V. Anthropogeography of Derealization

Deconstruction of reality has its own human geography. The religious and philosophical systems offering an escape from reality were born and developed in the area located between the Maghreb and the Bay of Bengal. Culturally speaking, the Irano-Semitic Middle East and India.

This Afro-Oriental space experienced historically a complex story of miscegenation and constitutes today a veritable melting-pot of the three so-called macro races: white, black and yellow (Hittites, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Vandals; Asian tribes traversing the Himalayan valleys and the Turkestan; slaves from Ethiopia, Nubia or Sudan sold in the markets of Arabia, Palestine, Egypt or the Maghreb).

Besides, the area has also borne witness to a peculiar phenomenon: the relative indifferentiation in the process of evolutionary development which its native populations have experienced. Evolution pushed Europe, the Far East and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively into the europid, mongolid and negrid direction. In the Afro-Oriental area, the intermediary types are nevertheless prevalent: Dravidians and Ethiopians are not properly black in their complexion and do not have the negroid profile; Arabs, Iranians or Indo-Afghans are not white but swarthy or brown, their hair is woolly, the physiognomy has a certain negroid touch. Besides, around the Eastern Mediterranean coast the process of sexual dimorphism is attenuated: men have often adipose feminoid tissues and women, abundant pilosity.

The region suffered two waves of invasion:

  1. Eastern Indo-Europeans (second millennium BCE): coming from Southern Russia, Indo-Iranians occupied Northern India and the Iranian plateau.
  2. Western Indo-Europeans (third millennium BCE – first millennium CE): from Central and Southern Europe Hittites, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Celts, Germanic tribes descended into the area.

The arrival of the tall, lean and fair horsemen to the banks of the Ganges and the Indus, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Jordan or the Nile must have produced a deep effect of ‘alienation’, more painful than the shock of the military defeat. The contest, beyond its military significance, exposed the comparative value of conqueror and conquered. The winner was not only stronger than the loser; he was ‘the other’. Between them there was no common measure of value. The victorious other obtained his force not from the weight of numbers, but from a mysterious element: he belonged to a homogeneous biological bloc not altered yet. Anthropology and ethnology indicate that the Proto-Indo-European people manifested a precise, characteristic racial physiognomy. Such a physiognomy anticipated the present Europid race in its varieties: white skin, tall stature, and dolichocephalic crania.

Dualism may be seen as the response the defeated offered to this anguishing underestimation. From now on, minor value was declared just ‘apparent’, a statement made easier by distinguishing between a world of appearances and a transcendental superior world. These speculative acrobatics helped to magically cancel the painful reality. A second scale of values, opposed to the one favoured by the victor, was constructed. Victory in this world, and the hereditary traits which made it possible, were declared as ‘non-values’.

A pre-Orwellian Decalogue was about to be born: 1. the imaginary is real; 2. Life is death; 3. Defeat is victory; 4. Weakness is strength; 5. Cowardice is honour; 6. Poverty (of spirit) is intelligence; 7. True is false; 8. Ignorance is knowledge; 9. Ugliness is beauty; 10. Laziness/inaction is action.

The most remarkable thing in this story is how this crude strawman – designed by the conquered to undermine the good conscience of his superior – was actually dressed up and adorned by the conqueror himself. Afro-asiatic languages, the language of the vanquished, were incapable of manufacturing and transforming this series of paralogisms into a solid philosophical system. The trick was accomplished thanks to Greek and Latin, and the use of alphabetic writing, which permit a sharper focus on word-creation and logical-temporal connections, in marked contrast to older hieroglyphic means of expression and a less analytical cognitive style.

Pythagoreans and Platonists, fond of Syrian and Egyptian mysteries, began this old tradition, which can only be dubbed ‘betrayal by stupidity’ and transformed themselves from European thinkers into make-up artists working for the deconstruction of reality. That is how Thomistic Scholasticism or Hegelianism, and its sub-product, Marxist Scholasticism, were created: as a cross between a magic-religious mentality and the scientific spirit.

That is also how the concept of ‘human being’, a fortuitous combination of soul, descending from a superior world, and body, belonging to this inferior world, came to life. This dual and abstract human being is the cosmic projection of the duplicitous nature of the half-breed, torn apart between two divergent heredities. Devaluation of earthly goods, renunciation of bodily pleasure, and withdrawal from worldly life in order to reach the purity of the world above is a nostalgic reflection of the lost genetic uniformity. Abhorrence of sexuality is the disgust that original sin, miscegenation, provokes. Assimilating light with goodness and evil with darkness projects the opposition between both sides, black and white, of the mixed genetic inheritance.

It is in these biological and historical realities that one must search for the origin of the delirious gnostic beliefs which have perturbed for more than two thousand years the psychological balance of European man.

VI. Gloom and Doom

In the case of India, the Indo-European speakers entered from the northwest, mixing with or displacing proto-Dravidian speakers, and establishing a caste system with themselves primarily in the higher castes. A 2001 study, led by Michael Bamshad of the University of Utah, found that the genetic similarity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank: the upper castes have a higher similarity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes.

Despite the system of castes, the degree of miscegenation after a few centuries was almost complete. Genetic incongruity ended up gaining the upper hand and, as a consequence, producing a deeply pessimistic outlook. Indian philosophy is full of life denial and nostalgia for the lost racial homogeneity. Where did the light-eyed heroes of the ancient sagas, the warriors who rode over the Alai-Pamir ranges go?

Indian Classical thought (Upanishads) is permeated by a feeling of slow degradation, an inexorable advance of incoherence, stabilized character traits being progressively submerged by exotic genetic combinations. Instead of subordinating reality to a superior world, as it was done in the Middle East, India opted for a flat denial of reality. The world was too horrid a place to be even considered real and had to be downgraded to mere appearance. In this case too, it was Sanskrit, the language of the conquerors, which provided the necessary linguistic scaffolding for the story of the irremediable decline of the Eastern branch of the white race.

In their group strategies, Irano-Semitic (Abrahamism) and Indian thought have many similarities: restatement of myth as history, projection of traditional wisdom as authoritarian law, dependence upon supernaturalism (magic, miracles), false promise of impossible (supernatural) reward for compliance, castes of priests with status, power and economic incentives to perpetuate the falsehoods, secret knowledge, payment of ritualistic costs to falsehoods.

But while the purpose of Abrahamism has always been to subvert society from the inside, undermining the aristocratic class with guilt and bad conscience while stirring up the underclasses, the strategy of Yoga and Buddhism has been different.

The minority Hindu upper-caste created a religion of submission for the teeming masses of India, the perfect factory of docile and indolent subjects. To the ever new warlike invaders the traditional system of rule in India, wrapped in the language of resignation and pre-emptive defeat, was the perfect tool of domination and in exchange, the native ‘spiritual elite’ of the country managed to preserve their highly inflated social status.

That is why India, while a deeply feminine civilization unable to maintain territory or develop technological civilization, and easily and repeatedly dominated by foreign elites, has maintained the same system of rule effectively forever.

We may now compare the group survival strategies of India (I) and the West (W) and the results they produce:

And as a consequence: wealth, health, knowledge, innovation and progress (W) vs poverty, sickness, ignorance and stasis or regress (I).

VII. to Those Who Are Awake There Is only One World (Heraclitus)

Europe has never been really attracted to Indian thought, but the Irano-Semitic poison has ended up sapping the vitality of the West. Abrahamism in its successive manifestations, with its egalitarian and universalist abstractions, has been traveling and ever molding the outlook, the discourse, and values that today inform Western consciousness. Enthralled by this egalitarian utopia, European man can no longer assume control of the world’s destiny, or be the creator of a new future. Ashamed of a past which over time had given it undisputed superiority, the egalitarian West now wants the ‘end of history.’ It desires a return to the static stage of mammalian happiness: to an Edenic pre-human past.

Together with its good conscience, the West also lost the will to resist the rising tide of the non-Western world. Afro-Thomistic and Sino-Marxist propaganda were followed by effete postmodern discourse and once nihilism and social malaise become prevalent, especially among the youth, Yoga, an indicator of social dysfunction, and Buddhism, a form of escapism, can be used as effective spiritual opiates.

The symbiotic relation between ‘priests’ and ‘laity’ usually turns into one of deceivers and deceived, predators and prey. It may be interesting to recall an interview with Russian defector and ex-KGB agent, Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, in which he reports the KGB interest in promoting yoga as a way of demoralizing America:

“The KGB became interested in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Hindu guru, charlatan and sexual deviant, whose methods were popularized in the West by The Beatles and Mia Farrow. The Kremlin noticed that influential Americans were visiting Maharishi’s ashram, learning transcendental meditation from him and transplanting it to America…to meditate, in other words, to isolate oneself from the current social and political issues of your own country, to get into your own bubble, to forget about the troubles of the world…most of the problems, most of the burning issues of today, can be solved simply by meditating. Don’t rock the boat, don’t get involved. Just sit down, look at your navel, and meditate. And the things, due to some strange logic, due to cosmic vibration, will settle down by themselves…this is exactly what the KGB and Marxist-Leninist propaganda want from Americans, to distract their opinion, attention, and mental energy from the real issues of the United States, into non-issues, into a non-world, non-existent harmony.”

Europeans/Westerners need to become again self-conscious, healthy, physically fit, and alert to the reality of this world. Exactly like three thousand five hundred years ago, religion and philosophy are an act of war. History reveals a recurring struggle across millennia between two dramatically different approaches to life on earth. In one approach, we see belief in the existence of the outside world, self-affirmation and development of agency. In the other approach, we see the belief that this world is an illusion or of secondary importance, self-denial and dissolution of one’s personality in the quietness of the atemporal and impersonal Self. It is the conflict of civilizations between the masculine/true/eugenic (aristocratic/European), and feminine/false/dysgenic (theological/Afro-Oriental). And now we are currently in the third iteration of that conflict.

Most of Western history has been a struggle between these two contrasting attitudes to life and reality. For any individuals genuinely concerned to promote man’s ascending earthly life, the takeaway lesson from this monumental struggle is that they must support the first approach.

Their weapons cannot be supernaturalism, mysticism or fictionalism, but Aristotelianism (empirical realism) combined with evolutionary Darwinian thought so as to complete the scientific study of man as psycho-somatic integrated unity.

That is what the Propertarian Institute pursues: to convert western aristocratic philosophy into rational and scientific terms: the remnant of the European aristocratic manorial system and the classical liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment combined with our ancient Indo-European instincts for group persistence and land-holding: truth-telling, the jury, and heroism.


Roman Law, Roman Imperium

In general, Indo-European peoples have perceived the need to preserve their originality while accepting the consequences imposed upon them by the expansion of cultural and geopolitical horizons generated by the Neolithic Revolution.

However – and thinking just of the ancient world – it was only the Romans who succeeded, thanks to the concept of Imperium, in achieving synthesis of permanence, faithfulness to themselves and to their origin, and full acceptance of ‘cosmic involvement’.

Clearly, Imperium and Empire must not be confused with each other. In fact, the notion of Imperium has found its truth and perfect realisation more in efforts that led to the establishment of the Roman Republic than in the maintenance of the post-Julian Empire.

The notion of Imperium reflects a will to cosmic order, and it is this order that organises hierarchically the various ‘gentes’ living under the protection of Rome. In theory and in practice, Imperium is at the antipodes of any sort of ‘universalism’. It does not seek to reduce humankind to one and the same; rather it seeks to preserve diversity in a world heading towards unification.

The Romans wanted to preserve their own city – their own ‘ius’: by temperament, all was conceived through rite and through law. However, such will to authenticity logically implied acknowledgment of ‘the other’. In this resided their political greatness.

As organised and conscious rejection of any sense of universalism – of any reductio ad unum – Imperium has, nevertheless, a political nature: it is realistic, not utopian. It is hierarchical: each member keeps its own ius, its own law; each people is free to administer its own city according to its traditional form of justice. However, in the relations between individuals from different cities, or among the cities themselves, ius romanus prevails over ius latinus – which, in turn, prevails over all others. And where neither ius romanus nor ius latinus is applicable, then what applies is ius gentium – a typical Roman abstraction to identify what might be common, or should be applied, to the iura of all the other peoples.

Hence, within the Imperium, Rome enjoys absolute primacy, and this may be explained naturally and in perfect justice. It is Rome which has conceived and created – and which organises and secures – a cosmos/order where each receives his due according to history (fatum). Since Imperium represents an order consecrated by fatum, diverse peoples approach the Romans asking for admission to the Roman Empire.

‘Regere imperio populos, Romane, memento / parcere victis ac debellare superbos’.(You, O Roman, remember to rule nations with your sway – these will be your arts – and to impose the tradition of peace, to spare the humbled and crush the proud.’) Such is the way Virgil defines the mission adopted by the Romans.


Judaism was the soil out of which grew Christianity – the flower of slave morality. Though a single unified system, it carried different emphases for the two groups.

For the Jews, the foci were self-pity, ethnic solidarity, thirst for revenge, obsession with freedom, hatred of the strong and powerful, and desire to recover lost wealth.

The Christians – through the figure of Jesus – preferred to emphasize the value of the downtrodden (‘blessed are the meek’); faith in God to bring justice (‘the meek shall inherit the Earth’); salvation in the afterlife – and a fixation with love as means for ameliorating suffering.

Athens or Jerusalem?

Tertullian, father of Latin Christianity and founder of Western theology, summarises the early Christian attitude to science and intelligence :

-“Credo quia absurdum” (I believe it because it is absurd); and

-“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic or Platonic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel”.

What indeed has Athens to do with the Church?

Aryan Myth, Abrahamism and The Beginning of The European Cultural Neurosis

The Indo-Europeans introduced not only practical techniques for the appropriation of the physical and biological world but also, above all, a new technique for organizing socio-political and juridical relationships. It developed concepts such as ‘genos,’ ‘polis,’ and ‘imperium’—in their classical, medieval, or modern translations—and this constituted the difference that came to define Indo-European identity when confronted with other populations, cultures, and civilizations.

Such a way of organizing society derived from a particular Weltanschauung. This world view, expressed in all fields of human activity, gave birth to a cosmogonic myth, around which Indo-European man understood, explained, and organized the universe and history. Its unique character is better perceived when contrasted with the mentality and culture of the Book of Genesis. The latter narrative, in its religious and secularised forms, continues to obsess contemporary Western civilization.

What is most striking when studying Indo-European cosmogony is the solemn affirmation, found everywhere, of man’s primacy. Indo-European cosmogony places a ‘cosmic man’ at the ‘beginning’ of the current cycle of the world. It is from him that all things derive: gods, nature, living beings—and man himself as a historical being. In the Indian world, the Rig Veda names him Purusha; his name is Ymir in the Edda; and, according to Tacitus, he was called Mannus among continental Germans. For the Vedic Indians, Purusha is the One through whom the universe begins (again). He is ‘naught but this universe, what has passed and what is yet to come.’ In the same fashion, Ymir is the undivided One: and by him, the world is first organized. His own birth results from the meeting of fire and ice.

Kalidasa’s poem Kumarasambhava—one of the summits of Indian poetic reflection on the traditions of the Vedas—marvelously explains the allusions of the Indo-European cosmogonic myth. The opposition between Purusha (cosmic man) and Prakriti (which corresponds, approximately, to natura naturans) is revealing. Through being able to see without depending for this on Prakriti, Purusha is at the origin of the universe.

Since the universe is but indistinct chaos, devoid of any sense or significance, it is only by means of the outlook and word of cosmic man that the multitude of beings and things may emerge—including man fully realized as such. Purusha’s sacrifice is the Apollonian moment at which is affirmed the principium individuationis—‘cause of all that exists and shall exist’—until that time when the world will crumble: the Dionysian end that is also the condition of a new beginning.

The universe does not derive its existence from something not part of it. It proceeds from the being of cosmic man: his body, his gaze, his word—and his consciousness. There is no opposition between two worlds—between created being and uncreated being. On the contrary, there is incessant conversion and consubstantiality between beings and things, between heaven and earth, between men and gods.

In such a Weltanschauung, the gods are themselves a quarter of the cosmic man. They are superior men in the Nietzschean sense; in a certain way, they perpetuate the transfigured and transfiguring memory of the first ‘civilizing heroes’: those who brought humankind from its precedent stage—and truly founded, by ordering it into three functions, human society, Indo-European society. These gods do not represent ‘Good’—neither do they represent ‘Evil.’ Insofar as they represent sublimated forms of the good and evil that coexist, as antagonists, within life itself, they are both good and evil. Hence, each presents an ambivalent aspect—a human aspect. This explains why mythical imagination tends to split personality: Mitra-Varuna, Jupiter-Dius Fidius, Odin/Wotan-Tyr, etc. In relation to present humankind, which they have instituted as such, these gods correspond indeed to their mythical ‘ancestors’ and ideal models. Legislators, inventors of social tradition, they remain present, are still active. However, they also remain subject to fatum: destined in a very human way to an ‘end.’

In brief, we are referring not to creating gods, but rather to creatures—human gods who are, nevertheless, organizers-orderers of the world: ancestral gods for current humankind; gods who are great in both good and evil and who place themselves beyond such notions. On Olympus, says Heraclitus, ‘the gods are immortal men, whereas men are mortal gods; our life is their death and our death their life.’

What are labelled ‘Indo-European people’ correspond to a society which came to the fore at the beginning of the Neolithic Age and whose cosmogonic myth was organised by a new perspective gained at this historical juncture—a perspective allowing reflection on the prior belief system and its revolutionary reinterpretation.

If belief in a ‘supreme being’—not to be mistaken for the one god of monotheism—was common to ‘primitive humankind’—that is, to the human groups who lived at the end of the Mesolithic Age, the Indo-European cosmogony is a reformulation of that idea—or rather a discourse that explodes and overcomes the language and the ‘reason’ of the preceding period. It is legitimate to consider that, for the Mesolithic ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, the supreme being has become none other than man himself; has become, more precisely, a ‘cosmic projection’ of man as holder of magic power. Similarly, one may conclude that this particular Indo-European idea of the supreme being was not shared by the other human groups who descended from the Mesolithic Age.

The classical Middle East has ‘reflected’—imagined and interpreted—the same set of Mesolithic beliefs in a manner diametrically opposed to the one taken by the Indo-Europeans. The Judeo-Christian Bible—summa of the religious Levantine Weltanschauung—stands at the antipodes of the Indo-European vision.
Yahweh has not extracted the universe by subdivision and ‘dismemberment’ of himself. He has created it ex nihilo, out of nothing. He is not the coincidentia oppositorum: the ‘Undivided Self,’ the place where all relative oppositions meet, melt, and surpass themselves. He is not simultaneously ‘being and non-being.’ He is being only: ‘I am that I am’ (Exodus 3:14).

Entirely alien to the world, Yahweh is the antithesis of all tangible reality. He is not an aspect, sum, level, form, or quality of the world. ‘The world is entirely distinct from God, its creator,’ the First Vatican Council of 1870 reminds us. Consequently, since the created universe cannot be identical to the creating god, the world lacks essence. It has existence only. More precisely, it is a being of ‘inferior degree’—imperfect.

Indo-European polytheism is the complementary ‘reverse’ of what might be defined as mono-humanism or pan-humanism: man is the law of the world (anthropos o nomos tou kosmou) and the measure of all things. In contrast, Jewish monotheism appears to be the conclusion of a process of reabsorption: reduction to unity of a multiplicity of non-human deities (personified natural forces) operated by Elohim-Yahweh. In short, it is the outcome of a mental speculation that also leads the plurality of things back to a single principle; not man, in this case, but matter and energy: ‘nature.’

From being the one and only god, non-ambivalent, Yahweh evidently represents absolute Good. It is understandable that he often shows himself to be cruel, implacable, jealous. Absolute Good could only be intransigent against Evil. What is less logical is the biblical conception of evil. Not deriving from absolute good, evil should not exist in a world created from nothing by a god who is ‘infinitely good.’ The Bible tries to solve the problem by explaining away evil as the consequence of the revolt of certain creatures—notably Lucifer—against the authority of Yahweh. Hence, evil seems to be the refusal of a creature to play the role assigned by Yahweh. The power of evil may at times seem considerable. However, as compared to the power of good (Yahweh), it is nothing of the sort: the final outcome of the struggle between Good and Evil is never in doubt. All problems, all conflicts are already solved before they take place: history is pure decay, the effect of the blindness of impotent creatures.

In this way, from the start, history is devoid of sense. The First Man—the first humanity—has blundered in giving in to a suggestion from Satan. In consequence, he has declined the role Yahweh had assigned to him. He has picked the forbidden apple, and entered history.

Creator of the universe, Yahweh has also played—in relation to the ‘current’ human society—a role entirely antithetical to that played by the Indo-European sovereign gods. Yahweh is not a ‘civilising hero’ who invents a social tradition. Rather, he constitutes an omnipotence that opposes Adam’s ‘fault’—the sort of human life the latter wished to enjoy: a post-Neolithic urban civilization—implicitly referred to, in the Book of Genesis, in the story of the Tower of Babel. However, long before this, Yahweh had refused the land’s produce offered by the farmer Cain, and ‘had regard [only] for Abel and his offering’ (Genesis 4:3–5). Abel is not a farmer; rather, he is but a nomad who has abandoned hunting and survives from carrying out razzias. He extends the Mesolithic tradition into a new society—born of the Neolithic Revolution—and rejects the new way of life.

Subsequently, the mission of Abraham—the nomad who had deserted the city of Ur—and that of his descendants, will be to negate and reject, from the very interior of the world, any form of post-Neolithic civilisation, since its very existence perpetuates the memory of the ‘revolt’ against Yahweh. After Abraham, Moses maintains this commitment. Just as the people of Israel were able to escape captivity in Egypt, the whole of humanity is called upon to escape the ‘captivity’ of history. The law of Yahweh, handed down at Mount Sinai, is presented as the means of rescinding, once and for all, Adam and Eve’s transgression.

Man, in relation to the ‘god’ of the Bible, is not really a ‘son’; rather, he is a mere creature. Yahweh has made him, as any other living being, just as a potter models a vase. He has made him in ‘his own image’ (Genesis 1:27) in order to have his steward on Earth: the guardian of Paradise. The power man holds over the world is a power by proxy: a power entrusted to him that he may use only on the condition he not use it fully. Adam, seduced by the Devil, challenged the role that Yahweh had wanted him to play. But man will forever remain God’s servant (‘And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified,’ Isaiah 49:3). The superiority of man over beast is as nothing—for all is vanity. ‘All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again’ (Ecclesiastes 3:20).

Man, according to the teachings of the Bible, has to remember unfailingly that he is dust; that historical existence has the sense only of that implicitly ascribed when history is actively rejected.

‘Roman’ Christianity, born with the Constantinian arrangement, was from the start an attempt to establish, within the ‘ancient’ world transformed by Rome in orbis politica, a compromise between the Indo-European Weltanschauung and the Judaic religion, adapted to Roman imperial civilisation by the alleged efforts of Jesus. The one and only god became, through dogmatic ‘mystery,’ ‘one god in three persons.’ The old trinity that the Vedic Indians called Trimurti has been integrated and, broadly, these ‘persons’ have assumed the three functions of Indo-European society, now in an inverted, spiritualised form. As creator and sovereign, Yahweh nevertheless continues to reject the dual aspect of reality: evil is the exclusive province of Satan. The new name ‘Deus Pater’—‘eternal and divine father,’ revered by the Indo-Europeans—is substituted for the old name given by the Bible. Yahweh is father only of his ‘second person’: a son sent to Earth to play a role opposed to that of ‘founding hero.’ He is a son who decides to become alienated from this world in order the better to show a way to the world beyond, and who, if he renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, does this only because to him what belongs to Caesar is of no value at all. He is a son, finally, whose function is not to ‘make war,’ but to preach a jealous peace that will benefit only the ‘men of goodwill’—the adversaries of this world—those to whom is reserved the only nutrient of eternity: the grace administered by the third ‘person,’ the Holy Spirit.

Man, as a creature—and as a created being—is the serf of God’s serfs: ‘excrement’ (stercus, as Augustine of Hippo put it). However, at the same time, he is also the brother of the incarnated son of Yahweh, which ‘almost’ makes him a son of God—provided he knows how to will and deserve it, something that depends on the grace the Creator administers according to unfathomable criteria. The day shall come when humankind will be definitively and eternally divided between the saints and the damned. There is a biblical Valhalla: the Celestial Paradise, but it is now reserved for the anti-heroes (In To Have or to Be? (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), Erich Fromm observes: ‘The [Christian] martyr is the exact opposite of the pagan hero personified in the Greek and Germanic heroes. . . . For the pagan hero, a man’s worth lay in his prowess in attaining and holding onto power, and he gladly died on the battlefield in the moment of victory’).

The others belong to Hell.

This compromise has for centuries molded the history of what is called ‘Western civilisation.’ For centuries, according to the deepest affinities, ‘pagan’ and ‘Levantine’ man has been able to see—in the ‘one and threefold’ god—his own respective divinity. This explains the numerous confusions that have always characterised historical Christianity. The coexistence of two antagonistic spiritualities—often confronting one another, even in the hearts of the same individuals—eventually crystallise into a veritable neurosis of the European mentality.

Today we can confidently state that the Constantinian ‘arrangement’ arranged nothing, and that the day the motto ‘In hoc signo vinces’ was proclaimed had detrimental consequences for the Greco-Roman and Celto-Germanic world. Until recently, the Church of Rome particularly, and the Christian churches in general remained, as organised secular powers, attached to the appearances of the old compromise. However, in more recent times they began to recognise the authentic essence of Christianity. Hence, Yahweh, finally casting off the mask of luminous and celestial Deus-Pater, was rediscovered and proclaimed anew. In 1938 Pope Pius XI declared: ‘Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [i.e., Christians] are all Semites.’

However, long before the churches reached that point, ‘profane’ (demythicised and secularised) Christianity, i.e., egalitarianism in all its forms, had found its path according to biblical truth. This was marked by the rejection of history; the proclaimed will to ‘step out of history’ in order to return to ‘nature’; the tendency to reabsorb human specificity into the ‘physical-chemical’; all determinist materialisms; Marcuse’s condemnation of art on the grounds that by integrating man in society it would betray ‘truth’; finally, the egalitarian ideology that wants to reduce humankind to the anti-hero model: the chosen one, hostile to any specific civilisation in that he wishes to see in it nothing but unhappiness, misery, exploitation (Marx), repression (Freud), or pollution. All this has invariably restored—still continues to restore today, at that precise moment when a new technological revolution is inviting us to overcome old ‘forms’—that motionless, ‘eternal’ (if there ever was such) Judaic vision: an unequivocal ‘No’ to any present pregnant with a future.

Saying ‘Yes’ to history—ever-becoming, ever re-proposing new foundations—implies assuming new forms and content. Saying ‘Yes’ is creation, the work of art. ‘No’ exists only by denying any value to such work. The Indo-European cosmogonic myth reassures us that saying ‘Yes’ is always possible. In a different world, arising from the ruins of the old, the mission of ‘civilising heroes’ is eternal, and it assumes, serenely, the splendid and tragic destiny of one who creates, gives birth to himself, and accepts, as condition of any historical adventure, of any life, the idea of his own end.

Eastern Wisdom (i)

The habit of contrasting the crude materialism of the West with the spiritualism of the East needs to be revised. The great Asiatic civilizations developed in a pre-logical era; the mind groped for truth through intuition, symbol, magic and mysticism. It was irrational. It refused to see the external world as an autonomous reality capable of being shaped and adapted through an understanding of its laws.

The West, thanks to the Greek genius, succeeded in rising to the level of rational thought, founded on respect for a principle of no concern to the Oriental mind, the principle of contradiction. By associating the Hellenic Logos with the Roman Law, Europe realized a synthesis which, despite many tribulations, is still the most miraculous accomplishment of the human adventure.

Eastern Wisdom (ii): Confucianism

The Chinese were an industrious and practical people. They excelled in map-making and meteorology; they created the science of seismography and were pioneers in civil and hydraulic engineering. To their ingenuity the world owes the first mechanical clocks with escapements and balance wheels; powder, which they used for fireworks long before making hand grenades; the compass; paper; silk; and printing with movable letters. Nevertheless, they did not apply this inventiveness to their industry, which remained essentially unchanged over the two thousand years between the accession of the Han and the fall of the Manchu dynasty.

Why not? Because the Chinese were interested in a different set of values from those which preoccupied the West. Instead of trying to dominate nature, the Chinese sought to adjust themselves to a cosmic environment, natural and human. The two essential problems of concern to the Chinese were the search for good government and the art of finding contentment in the midst of poverty and adversity.

The first problem concerned Confucius. He regarded man as essentially social, and he took as his personal mission the saving of a world which seemed to him to be in full decadence. His solution involved the restoration of five essential virtues: good manners, distributive justice, kindness, filial piety and wisdom.
Confucianism, at once a theory of government and a theory of ethics, produced strong patterns of social ritualism, and the written language of China helped maintain this conformity. The immobility of words, formed of monosyllables, tended to stereotype thought and to freeze social life.

Confucius and his school recognized this when they insisted that the remedy for the disorders of the times was to be found in the “rectification of words”. To assure good government, everything had to be identified by its true name, and everyone had to conduct himself in accordance with the correct designation of his function. The incorrect use of words was a semantic sin leading to social disorder.

It was important, therefore, that public functionaries be recruited by examinations based on their knowledge of classical books, named and written in an ancient language very different from that in contemporary use, and requiring the mastery of tens of thousands of characters. For two thousand years the institution of the Mandarins attracted the best minds into the services of an administration whose primary concern was to maintain a static social order, in harmony with and dependent upon an unchanging cosmic order.

Eastern Wisdom (iii): Taoism

Taoism, anterior to Confucianism, stands in sharp contrast to it. However, its results were even worse, for Taoism negated logic and encouraged evasion.

Lao-Tse attributed all misfortunes to man’s departures from the state of nature when he tried to control his destiny.

The social virtues praised by Confucius – justice, good manners, wisdom and kindness – were regarded as conventions and obstacles to the natural order of things and deserving only of contempt. Laws merely multiplied the number of thieves and bandits.

For Confucius, the good sovereign was one who did everything possible for his people; for Lao-Tse, the best sovereign was one who saw that he could do nothing and let matters take a natural course. Man must return to his original state of innocence.

Through asceticism, life could be prolonged; immortality itself was possible for him who could absorb himself in the ecstasy of Tao, an indescribable reality which was everywhere, which had no definite limits and was the origin and supreme law of things.

Eastern Wisdom (iv): China (conclusion)

Such mentalities (Confucianism, Taoism) made progress of the Western sort a theoretical as well as a practical impossibility. Prior to the arrival of Westerners, China was a closed society which regarded itself as perfect, as having nothing to learn from foreigners.

Withdrawn behind an intellectual and moral “Chinese Wall,” the Middle Empire could not develop until the arrival of the barbarians, the European and American “devils.”

Chinese mathematical thought was profoundly arithmetic and algebraic, but unlike the Greek mind it never developed an axiomatic and deductive geometry.

Failing to conceive the idea of natural law, the Chinese did not develop the fundamental sciences until after the arrival of the missionaries from the West. Nature was a symbolism to be deciphered, and for this purpose a number of pseudosciences were constructed – numerology, astrology and physiognomy – all of which were incompatible with the discovery of physical laws.

The Chinese never rose to the abstract idea of a homogeneous and isotropic space such as Euclid conceived and could express in geometric terms. Their physics remained caught in the metaphysics of Yin and Yang, the five elements, and their symbolic affinities. Hence their science never got beyond the pre-Galileo level.

Joseph Needham, perhaps the greatest authority on Chinese science, observes:

“When we say that modern science developed only in Europe and only in the time of Galileo at the end of the Renaissance, we are trying to say that then and then only were laid the foundations of the structure of the natural sciences as we know them today; that is to say, the application to nature of mathematical hypotheses, the full understanding and systematic use of the experimental method, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, the geometrization of space and the acceptance of a mechanical model of reality.”

Eastern Wisdom (v): India

After an honorable start, India failed to attain through its own efforts the level of technical and scientific competence of the West. As with China, the failure was traceable to a different way of looking at the world.

East and West started with the same pessimistic assumptions: the human condition is precarious, painful and fleeting. Theoris of Megara, Simonides of Chios and the Greek tragedies all passed judgments on existence fully as bleak as Buddha´s. But the responses were different. In the West, they suggested actions to improve the situation; in India, evasion.

Western man sought to remedy the misery of his condition by mastery of the world; the Hindu sought to escape the world by mastery of self, of the internal life of the spirit. The Western mind believed in the reality of the external world and undertook to impose upon it the power of man’s will; the Hindu regarded the external world and the idea of Ego as illusory, and sought to submerged personality in the quietude of the impersonal and timeless “Self.”

The highest wisdom was to escape from the wheel of rebirths by the technique of depersonalization, to be had through the mastery of knowledge of Samkhya or the psychosomatic methods of deliverance of Yoga. The purpose in both cases was to enter in an ecstatic fusion with the Absolute (Brahma), who in his positive form is Being itself, and in his negative form is Nothingness, the Nirvana.

To this metaphysics, with its denial of the wish to live, must be added a compartmentalization of Hindu society which prevented the invigorating circulation of elites that alone can keep a society healthy. There was no possibility of rising from one caste to another; there was no “social ladder” to climb. Nothing was done prior to 1950 to change this situation.

Eastern Wisdom (vi): Islam, Arabic Civilization

From the 8th to the 12th century the Islamic Empire, made up of many peoples, extending from the Pyrenees to the limits of China, preserved Hellenic science, enriched it with borrowings from Persia, India and even China, and finally transmitted it to the Latin West.

Expelled from Europe by the Christians, driven from Asia by the Mongols, subjected to the Turks in Egypt, the Arabs lost contact with the Persians, the Syrians, the Christians and the Jews whose presence had played a vitalizing role in Arab culture. Thrown back upon themselves, they sank into a long torpor from which they were not aroused until the 19th century and the coming of the peoples of the West.

How is this sleep of Islam to be explained?

It was due to the fact that the Parsees, the Christians, the Jews and the Pagans who accepted the religion of Islam had done so more to be free from various onerous taxes than from any real conversion. The scholars who constituted the “Arab Miracle” were for the most part Syrians, Persians and Spaniards, peoples who were not Arab by blood, and had nothing of the Arab spirit. Once these alien elements were eliminated, the Islamic masses again fell under the yoke of their fanatical imams.

From 1200 on, a theological reaction swept through Islam. There were no longer philosophers – the word itself became synonymous with ‘infidel’ – and only occasionally was there a scholar like the historian Ibn-Khaldun. The Turks, devoid of any critical and probing spirit, imposed their heavy yoke on Islam; and Islam, returning to its sources, paralyzed inquiry into a formula which brooked no answer: “Allah aalam” (God knows best what is).

The traditionalism of Islam is incompatible with the spirit of inquiry and the idea of progress. For the Muslim, all truth worth knowing is contained in the Koran, at once a dogma and a code of faith, whose prescriptions regulate the smallest details of life. Whatever happens is the will of Allah. All is preordained; the only thing to do is to submit without complaint.

This fatalism is destructive of effort, of any manifestation of personal will. It expresses the atavistic resignation of the nomad before the emptiness of the desert. Belief in another life, full of sensuous delights, of houris and fresh meadows, consoles the faithful for present tribulations. This mentality rules out restlessness, dissatisfaction with self, that constant drive to improve which is the ethical mainspring of the internal life of Western man.

Eastern Wisdom (& Vii): Zen

Zen was introduced in Japan at the end of the 12th century, five hundred years after Confucianism and Buddhism. It acknowledges neither God nor life beyond death, does not emphasize the distinction between good and evil and does not have a fixed doctrine or holy scripture.

The teachings of Zen, which “do not stand upon words,” are transmitted through provoking paradoxes and extravagant questions (koans):

“Two hands clap and there is a sound, what is the sound of one hand?”
“Two sisters are crossing the street, which one is the older sister?”
“What is Zen? Three pounds of flax.”

Koans are described by Zen masters as pointers to an unmediated “pure Consciousness, devoid of cognitive activity.” The one unforgivable sin in a Zen monastery is to be too logical. The demon to be exorcised is rational thinking: classifying and categorizing, conceptual definitions, coherent reasoning. Abstract thinking prevents instant enlightenment (satori). The idea is to suppress the verbal restrictions imposed by tradition and consequently destroy the inhibitions caused by paralyzing timidity.

Reflecting kills action, therefore “If you walk, just walk. If you sit, just sit. Don’t wobble!” and to the terrorized victim of traditional Japanese education, it is even recommended: “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!”

As Taoism in China, Zen must be seen as a counterbalance to the rigidly conservative Confucianism. The traditional dread of unforeseen situations is neutralized by springing surprises and shocks on the disciple and encouraging him to reciprocate in equally eccentric fashion. The koan technique is designed to bring out that side of a person which the social code condemns: “the unexpected man”.

Zen influence on Japanese arts was at one time (16th and 17th centuries) quite profound: on painting, landscape gardening, flower arranging, the tea ceremony, fireflies chasing, swordsmanship, archery, judo. It created a unique lifestyle.

However, although originally Japanese Zen emphasized a kind of spontaneity which was creative in nature, this spontaneity quickly became an automatic and mechanistic spontaneity which in turn drained Japanese culture of its vitality. It degenerated into a mere routine, dealing only with stereotypical subjects in a petrified style. Koans ended up becoming at best a hilarious leg-pull, an existentialist hoax, and at worst, a web of solemn absurdities: “Ugly is beautiful, false is true and also conversely”. This is not Orwell, it was written in all seriousness by Suzuki, the foremost propounder of modern Zen.

Zen, originally a cure for de-conditioning, ended up becoming a new type of social conditioning.

Islam and the Arabs

As long as Islam was in the hands of the Arab race, however, there was no intellectual development involving a concern for matters of this world. It was different once the Persians gained the ascendency, and the Abbasid caliphs supplanted the Umayyads at Damascus. The Abbasids established their new capital at Baghdad and made it the centre of the civilized world, while a prince of the Umayyads escaped to Spain, where he established a realm which was practically independent. The brilliant caliphs who followed one another at Baghdad – Al-Mansur, Harun al-Rashid and Al-Ma’mun the Great, contemporaries of the Carolingians – respected the external rituals of the religion of which they were the chiefs, but, like the popes of the Renaissance, they interested themselves in many other matters. During the second half of the eleventh century, the political power of the Arabs declined with the taking of Bagdad by the Seljuk Turks, the reconquering of Aragon, Toledo, and Palermo by the Christians and the entry into Jerusalem by the Crusaders. Expelled from Europe by the Christians, driven from Asia by the Mongols, subjected to the Turks in Egypt, the Arabs lost contact with the Persians, the Syrians, the Christians and the Jews whose presence had played a vitalizing role in Arab culture. Thrown back upon themselves, they sank into a long torpor from which they were not aroused until the 19th century and the coming of the peoples of the West. How is this sleep of Islam to be explained? It was due to the fact that the Parsees, the Christians, the Jews and the Pagans who accepted the religion of Islam had done so more to be free from various onerous taxes than from any real conversion. The scholars who constituted the “Arab Miracle” were, for the most part, Syrians, Persians and Spaniards, peoples who were not Arab by blood, and had nothing of the Arab spirit. Once these alien elements were eliminated, the Islamic masses again fell under the yoke of their fanatical imams. From 1200 on, a theological reaction swept through Islam. There were no longer philosophers – the word itself became synonymous with ‘infidel’ – and only occasionally was there a scholar like the historian Ibn-Khaldun. The Turks, devoid of any critical and probing spirit, imposed their heavy yoke on Islam; and Islam, returning to its sources, paralyzed inquiry into a formula which brooked no answer: “Allah aalam” (God knows best what is). The traditionalism of Islam is incompatible with the spirit of inquiry and the idea of progress. For the Muslim, all truth worth knowing is contained in the Koran, at once a dogma and a code of faith, whose prescriptions regulate the smallest details of life. Whatever happens is the will of Allah. All is preordained; the only thing to do is to submit without complaint. This fatalism is destructive of effort, of any manifestation of personal will. It expresses the atavistic resignation of the nomad before the emptiness of the desert. Belief in another life, full of sensuous delights, of houris and fresh meadows, consoles the faithful for present tribulations. This mentality rules out restlessness, dissatisfaction with self, that constant drive to improve which is the ethical mainspring of the internal life of Western man. From the moment he satisfies the fundamental prescription of the Koran, which is to believe in the one God and his Prophet, he is at peace with himself. There results a quietism which bears the outward appearance of a noble serenity but excludes all effort to improve the human condition. Since Allah has made man’s home what it is, why try to improve it by inventions which border on impiety and contribute nothing to man’s salvation? Why maintain the Roman aqueducts at Carthage? The religion of Islam rules out intellectual curiosity. Omar, burning the books at the Library of Alexandria to warm the Moorish baths, is only a legend, but the words attributed to him are full of significance: “If these books say the same things the Koran says, they are useless; if they say anything else they are false and should be destroyed.”

The Abrahamic or Egalitarian Worldview

Irrespective of the forms it has adopted, the Abrahamic or egalitarian world view has always been eschatological – and also reflects an implicit anthropology. It attributes a negative value to history, and discerns sense in historical motion only insofar as the latter tends towards its own negation and final end.
According to this view, history has a beginning and it must also have an end. It is but an episode—an incident as far as what constitutes the essence of humanity is concerned. The true nature of man would be external to history. And the end of history would restore—sublimating it—whatever existed at the beginning. Human eternity would be based not on becoming but on being.

I.-The Christian Perspective
This episode which is history is perceived in the Christian perspective as damnation. History derives from man being condemned by God—owing to original sin—to unhappiness, labour, sweat, and blood. Humanity lived in happy innocence in the Garden of Eden, and was condemned to history because its forefather, Adam, transgressed the divine commandment, wanting to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge: to become like God. Adam’s fault weighs, as original sin, upon every individual who comes to the world. It is, by definition, inexpiable, since God himself was offended.

However, God, in his infinite goodness, himself takes charge of the expiation. He becomes man—incarnate in the person of Jesus. The sacrifice of the Son of God introduces in historical becoming the essential event of Redemption. No doubt this concerns only those individuals touched by Grace, but it makes possible the slow march towards the end of history, for which, from then on, the ‘communion of saints’ must prepare humanity. Finally, there will come a day when the forces of Good and Evil will come face to face in a battle that will lead to a Last Judgement and, thence, to the instauration of the Kingdom of Heaven—which has its dialectical counterpart in the abyss of Hell.

Eden before the beginning of history; original sin; expulsion from the Garden of Eden; traversing the vale of tears that is the world—the place of historical becoming; Redemption; communion of saints; apocalyptic battle and Last Judgement; end of history and instauration of a Kingdom of Heaven: these are the mythemes that structure the mythical vision of history proposed by Christianity. In this vision, man’s historical becoming has a purely negative value, and the sense of an expiation.

Ii.- the Marxist View

The same mythemes can be found—now in a secularised and pseudoscientific form—in the Marxist view of history. There, history is presented as the result of the class struggle: a struggle between groups defined in relation to their respective economic conditions. The prehistoric Garden of Eden has been transformed into a primitive communism practised by a humanity still immersed in the state of nature and of a purely predatory character. Whereas man in Eden was constrained by God’s commandments, man in primitive communism lives under the pressure of misery. Such pressure has brought about the invention of the means of agricultural production, but this invention has also turned out to be a curse. It has entailed, indeed, not only the exploitation of nature by man, but also the division of labour, the exploitation of man by man, and, consequently, human alienation. The class struggle is the implicit consequence of this exploitation of man by man. Its result is history.

As we can see, for Marxists it is economic conditions that determine human behaviour. By logical concatenation, the latter leads to the creation of ever new systems of production which, in their turn, cause new economic conditions and—especially—ever greater misery for those who are exploited. Nevertheless, there comes a moment of Redemption. With the arrival of capitalism misery peaks—it becomes unbearable. Proletarians become conscious of their condition, and this redemptive realisation gives rise to the organising of communist parties—exactly as the redemption of Christ had caused the founding of a communion of saints. The Judeo-Christian notion of ‘Grace’ finds its equivalent, especially in relation to the Sermon of the Mount.

Communist parties carry out an apocalyptic struggle against the exploiters. This may be long and difficult, but it will ultimately and necessarily be successful: it is ‘the sense of history.’ This will bring about the abolition of social classes, put an end to man’s alienation, and allow the instauration of a communist society—unchanging and classless. Furthermore, since history is the result of the class struggle, evidently there will be no more history. Prehistoric communism will be reinstated—like the Garden of Eden in the Kingdom of Heaven—but in a sublimated way. While primitive communist society was afflicted by material misery, post-historic communist society will enjoy a perfectly balanced satisfaction of its needs.

Hence, in the Marxist view, history also assumes a negative value. Born originally because of human alienation, it makes sense only insofar as it increases incessantly the misery of those exploited, finally contributing to the creation of the conditions through which misery will disappear and, as it were, ‘marching’ towards its own end, its self-abolition.

Iii.- the End of History
Both egalitarian views—religious Christian and secular Marxist—logically imply that history is determined not by the action of man, but by something that transcends him. It is true that Christianity ascribes free will to man and so affirms that it was Adam, having freely ‘chosen’ to sin, who is responsible for his fault, for his imperfection. However, it was God who made and wanted Adam to be imperfect.

On the other hand, Marxists were sometimes wont to say that history was made by man—or rather men, as members of a social class. However, it is the case that social classes are determined and defined by economic conditions, and that it had been original misery that had constrained men to enter into that bloody concatenation which is the class struggle. Man is then incited to act only as a result of his economic condition. He is a mere decoy in a game played in nature by material forces.

Within the egalitarian vision of history, man performs a dramatic role—in a tragic, shameful, and painful farce—one that he has not written and will never write. Dignity, as an authentic human truth, is found outside history—before it and after it.

Abrahamism: Contending with And Rejecting Aristotle

All three abrahamic religions have had to confront the ideas of the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Averroes tried to integrate Aristotle with Islam. Maimonides tried to integrate Aristotle with Judaism. Aquinas tried to integrate Aristotle with Christianity. All necessarily failed. Rationality cannot be integrated with faith; nor reason with anti-reason; nor, in philosophy, fact with fantasy.

In conquering parts of the Byzantine Empire, Arabs encountered Greek thought. Muslim scholars studied and were fascinated by the writings of Aristotle and translated them into Arabic. Avicenna and Averroes were superlative Aristotle scholars. The Arabs learned the method of observation-based rationality and, in a true golden age, made superb contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature, and other fields.

But it did not last. Due to the influence of Al-Ghazali and other reason-rejecting theologians, as well as a fundamentalism firmly entrenched in Islamic culture from its outset, faith ultimately crushed freedom of thought. Under orthodox Islam, the books of Avicenna, Averroes, and other great thinkers were burned in the 12th century. For eight hundred years since – the Islamic world has wallowed in a dark age.

When Christians reconquered large areas of Spain from the Muslims, they had access to the Islamic centers of learning in southern Spain. In the 12th century, Archbishop Raymund I of Toledo supported Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim scholars in another great translation movement, mirroring that of Baghdad three centuries earlier, but this time translating Greek masterpieces from Arabic into Latin, the language of European scholars. Predictably, as it had done centuries before, the Church resisted study of Greek philosophy. In 1210 a Church council at Paris forbade the reading of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysics and natural philosophy.

But this time the Church failed. Leading European minds, although still Catholic, were determined to gain a greater understanding of the natural world—and nobody, at that point in history, had attained a knowledge of nature equal to Aristotle’s.

In one of history’s great and tragic ironies, in the late Middle Ages Aristotle became the patron Greek philosopher of the Catholic Church. Many of that era’s thinkers, the Scholastics, were Christian Aristotelians.

But a critical and often overlooked point is that, in the centuries following Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, they too often rejected Aristotle’s method and clung to his specific conclusions as dogmatically as they did Biblical myths.

The Darkness of the Abrahamic Dark Ages

According to the Dutch economist Anguss Maddison, Europe suffered through zero economic growth in the centuries from 500 AD to 1500. Maddison shows that for a millennium there was no rise in per capita income, which stood at an abysmally low $215 in 1500. Further, he estimates that in the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live to roughly the age of 24 years—and that a third would die in the first year of life.

French historian Fernand Braudel, writing about the pre-18th-century era, points out, for instance, that although France was, by standards of the day, a relatively prosperous country, it is nevertheless believed to have suffered ten general famines during the 10th century; twenty-six in the 11th; two in the 12th—and these are estimates that do not even count the hundreds and hundreds of local famines.

European sewage and sanitation regressed back to primitivism during this era. Human waste products were often thrown out the window and into the street or simply dumped in local rivers. With the streets strewn with garbage and running with urine and feces—and with the same horrifying conditions permeating the rivers and streams from which drinking water was drawn—vermin and germs multiplied, and disease of every kind, untreatable by the primitive medical knowledge of the day, proliferated. Between 1347 and 1350, for example, the bubonic plague—the infamous “Black Death”—spread by the fleas that infest rats, ravaged Western Europe, obliterating roughly 20 million people, fully one-third of the human population. Norman Cantor, the leading contemporary historian of the Middle Ages, states: “The Black Death of 1348–49 was the greatest biomedical disaster in European and possibly in world history.”

Finally, the early Middle Ages witnessed a stupefying decline in levels of education and literacy from the Roman period. In the endemic warfare of the period, human beings lost the skill of writing and, largely, of reading. For example, during the 8th century, Charlemagne maintained that even the clergy knew insufficient Latin to understand the Bible or to properly conduct Church services.

A related disaster was that Classical learning was largely lost in the West. The loss of literacy in Greek was catastrophic for civilization, for it meant the simultaneous loss of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, engineering, and science. Andrew Coulson, a researcher in the field of educational history, points out that whereas the Greeks were fascinated by the natural world, taking pioneering steps in such sciences as anatomy, biology, physics, and meteorology, the Christians replaced efforts to understand the world with an attempt to know God; observation-based study of nature was, accordingly, subordinated to faith-based study of scripture. A decline in learning consequently afflicted every cognitive subject. What limited medical knowledge had been accumulated by Greek and Roman physicians was supplanted by utter mysticism. For example, St. Augustine believed that demons were responsible for diseases, a tragic regression from Hippocrates. Scientific work, in general, declined as interest in the physical world did.

W. T. Jones, the 20th century’s leading historian of philosophy, succinctly captured the essence of the decline, and of Christianity’s causal role in promoting it, when he stated: “Because of the indifference and downright hostility of the Christians almost the whole body of ancient literature and learning was lost. This destruction was so great and the rate of recovery was so slow that even by the ninth century Europe was still immeasurably behind the classical world in every department of life. This, then, was truly a ‘dark’ age.”

Daniel Gurpide: The quotations and data are extracted from an article by Andrew Bernstein: “The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages. A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason”.

Enlightenment Now: Voltaire on Abrahamism


“Our religion is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. … My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out.”
(Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, 5 January 1767)


“”But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.”
(Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, December 1740)


“In short, we find in them [the Jews] only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”
(A Philosophical Dictionary)

The Pragmatic Enlightenment

Voltaire‘s political outlook, for instance, was emphatically practical and flexible, embedded in and addressed to the specific circumstances of various European nations. He supported a mixed constitutional government in England, a more popular republic in Geneva and Holland, a strong monarchy in France, and an even stronger and more centralized one in Frederick‘s Prussia and Catherine‘s Russia. While he generally had kinder things to say about England and Geneva than France, Prussia, or Russia, he did not think that any of these regimes was simply the ‚best‘. On the contrary, he insisted that such judgments cannot properly be made in the abstract, that they can only be based on contextually sensitive empirical analysis.

The Pragmatic Enlightenment (ii)

Adam Smith’s opposition to the idea of moving people around “as if they were chess pieces” is observable in his hostility to mercantilism: legal monopolies, bounties, duties, trade prohibitions, laws of primogeniture, and so on. On the other hand, throughout The Wealth of Nations, he warns that his economic proposals – his system of natural liberty – should be implemented gradually, with due attention to the disorders they might generate.

For instance, in the midst of a discussion of import duties and trade prohibitions designed to protect domestic industries, he writes: “Humanity may require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market, as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence” (The Wealth of Nations).

The Pragmatic Enlightenment (iii)

Hume conceives of liberty primarily in terms of personal security and independence, protected by the rule of law. He does not conceive of liberty in terms of rights that are inherent in human nature or humanity’s natural state, and that constrain the reach of legitimate political power; on the contrary, he holds that liberty can be established and maintained only through stable, orderly, and effective government.

It is worth noting that Hume includes a citizen militia in his ‘perfect commonwealth,’ claiming that “without a militia, it is in vain to think that any free government will ever have security or stability.”

The Pragmatic Enlightenment (iv)

Throughout his analysis of the different types of liberty, Montesquieu takes special care to distinguish them all from democratic self-rule. While philosophers and ordinary citizens alike have often associated liberty with republics – especially democratic republics – and excluded it from monarchies, he says, such a view confuses “the power of the people…with the liberty of the people.” In his view, who governs is ultimately less important than how they govern.

Montesquieu writes that “political liberty concerns moderate monarchies just as it does republics, and is no further from a throne than from a senate. Every man is free who has good grounds to believe that the wrath of one or many will not take away his life or possession of his property.”

German Philosophy

The Greats of German philosophy (Kant-Fichte-Hegel-Marx-Heidegger, I’m leaving Nietzsche outside on purpose, I know) make up a Counter-Enlightenment tradition that ends up being suspicious of science and technology, anti-individualistic and anti-liberal. They all contributed in varying degrees to the authoritarian regimes that developed in the 1900s – the various forms of authoritarian nationalisms, the national and international socialisms, the fascisms – and the cultural catastrophes named ‘Frankfurt School’ and ‘Post-Modernism’.

Kant (the only picture in Kant’s house was a portrait of Rousseau that was hanging over his writing desk) buttressed the pre-modern worldview of faith and duty against the inroads of the Enlightenment: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” (Kant)

Hegel explicitly attacks the entire tradition of logic as it had developed from Aristotle to modernity. He wants to believe in a kind of spiritually-driven, dialectically-evolving metaphysics that cannot be expressed logically. His deeper views are that one’s self is but an aspect of the collective, that the Divine works through collective self-realization, and that the State is the manifestation of the Divine.

Hegel on the beginning of the universe: “So far, there is nothing: something is to become. The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed; so that being is already contained in the beginning. The beginning thus contains both, being and nothing; it is the unity of being and nothing, or is not-being which is being, and being which is also not being.” This is a forewarning of the worst Heidegger, the ‘nazi’ philosopher par excellence who paradoxically ended up recreating the Jewish cosmogonic myth (Creation ‘ex nihilo’).

The triad Kant-Fichte-Hegel is behind the modern German educational system, still active nowadays: a factory of perfect automata devoid of personality, adept at crushing any signs of individualism. Social conformism explains why today in Germany there is no resistance to the suicidal program implemented by ‘Big Mutti’.

German philosophers are Lutheran pastors in a new garb. All of them, even Marx. Is he German or Jewish? I’m not sure. Isn’t Protestantism another big gulp of Abrahamism? Are Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger German or Jewish? Is more dangerous the combination of a German philosopher raised in an Abrahamic cult or a Jewish thinker educated in the German school?

Wagner & Nietzsche (i)

Richard Wagner may be considered the most magnetic and powerful artistic voice of the nineteenth century, and a profound influence on modernity. From Wagner’s death until the First World War, composers, painters, philosophers, novelists, dramatists, and poets strove mightily to come to terms with his strangely vibrant and living legacy. No composer before or since has left such an enduring mark on the course of cultural history. Few artists have embraced public life so assiduously, and inspired so much controversy—in politics as well as in art.

Wagner’s work, especially his Ring of the Nibelung—an epic masterpiece of musical genius—represents a milestone and, arguably, the completion of a parabola symbolised by the great European tradition of tonal and polyphonic music, extending from Johann Sebastian Bach and his contemporaries to Mozart and Beethoven, and culminating, after Wagner, in Richard Strauss and Carl Orff.

‘Classical music,’ far from being a universal phenomenon, represents a specific geographical and cultural epoch without equal in other eras or civilisations. Indeed, even in pre-Bachian Europe, the music the Church imposed on the Catholic ecumene was based on the imitation of the Greco-Roman musical tradition, which was fundamentally of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern origin and, arguably, deriving from an exclusive melodic sensitivity.

Shortly after Carolingian times—with the forced conversion of Saxon tribes that followed the Massacre of Verden and the restoration of the Empire—another musical sensitivity (in this case harmonic) starts to penetrate the musical universe of the Church, which had remained secluded until that point. What might have been the origin of such new sensitivity?

Musicologists refer to a ‘pagan residue’ existing in the indigenous cultures of Northern Europe. Undoubtedly, a tonal system emerged, after a few centuries, from the opposition of the Church tradition and that of the indigenous music culture of Northern Europe.

As for Wagner, the Ring—the fifteen-hour grand cycle of operatic, theatrical, and literary representation, comprising one ‘Prelude’ (Das Rheingold) and ‘three Evenings’ (Die Walküre, Siegfried, and Götterdämmerung)—has been described as a ‘total work of art’ (Gesamtkunstwerk). It is impossible to comprehend in its entirety merely by reading the poem or listening to the music in private. Full comprehension requires attending its representation on stage—ideally in the privileged emplacement of Bayreuth.

Together with Parsifal, the Ring has been, until very recently, in the annual programme of the Bayreuth Festival, and it was conceived by Wagner as a sacral rite in the regeneration of history. He believed that art might redeem a culture, a society, and a people. Wagner likened the theatre to a temple of Aryan art and mystic rite, and through the Teutonic myth he found elements which would consecrate higher folk-consciousness, and an upward path to the Übermensch.

Only ancient Greece offers anything similar. In fact, Wagner has been often compared to Homer, only for it to be concluded by Herbert von Karajan that ‘Wagner is greater and more complete.’

The key to understanding this suprahumanist myth lies in an ‘idea of music’ that sustains and structures Wagner’s work of art: the living symbol of history’s three-dimensional time.

The key to understanding the suprahumanist myth lies in an ‘idea of music’ that sustains and structures Wagner’s work of art: the living symbol of history’s three-dimensional time.

In Wagner, music, drama (i.e., tragedy) and myth are closely related. Music, according to him, is an idea of the world: more precisely, ‘an idea of the world that encloses everything.’ Tragedy is born out of music, as if emerging from a maternal womb. It represents—realises on stage—this ‘idea’ of music, and does so by regenerating myth, the only form of expression able to reach and recover original purity—which Wagner names ‘the purely Human’ (Rein-Menschliches).

Wagner does not explain this idea of the world. Rather, he realises it by means of the Wort-Ton-Drama: that is, by the association within dramatic action of word and sound. Hence, this idea organises space-time in a radically new way: by establishing humankind’s historical becoming in the form of a tragedy governed by the law of recurrence. At any time, past, present, and future coincide. Becoming is there: only the centre changes, as well as the perspectives resulting from it. Wagner replaces a unilinear conception of time—which he rejects—with a three-dimensional time: the specific time of human becoming.

The image of the ring of the Nibelung—the ring which gives its name to the tetralogy—is the living symbol of the ‘spherical’ conception of history: the music of eternal recurrence.

Always identical, though always renewed, Wagnerian discourse is structured around a certain number of ‘guiding images’ (Leitbilder): the affirmation of becoming (in opposition to being); the premonition of a ‘rupture’ of historical time (Zeit-Umbruch); the return to a mythical past associated with a leap into the future . To these images correspond different Leitmotive (‘guiding motifs’), which constitute their musical transpositions.

The Ring constitutes dramatic representation of the ancient destiny myths of gods and heroes, whose memory the Scandinavian Edda and several German medieval poems had perpetuated. But it is more than that. Wagner’s imagination has transfigured what was hitherto a mere collection of literary fossils: the past that he has chosen and freely reconstituted, the actuality he has given to the old stories, the future that he projects—all these structure a new present of human consciousness. From the birth of a world till its demise —which is also conceived as regeneration and recommencement—an entire history of humankind is prodigiously evoked. Moreover, that history is simultaneously past, current—and coming—and is sustained by an anthropological conception—the Rein-Menschliches—which implies a radical reversal of values. Brought back to life from its millennial tomb, the ancient Germanic myth acquires a new dimension, and at the same time recovers an intoxicating barbarian youth.

It is not accidental that Wagner chose the mythical material of the Edda to represent his idea of the world. Rather, the choice imposed itself on him from necessity, insofar as it corresponded to the choice of one past among others: the choice of a deeper past—that of reconquest of origins and the promise of a longer future. Return to origins, which in egalitarian and Christian romantic discourse was an apparently reactionary lapsus through which pagan unconsciousness found expression, finds in Wagnerian discourse its proper logic—and hence its true countenance.

Structured by and around ‘the idea of music’—the three-dimensionality of time—and finally conscious of itself, Wagnerian discourse is both inspiration for a return to our deepest origins, and zeal to thrust forward into the furthest future: a revolutionary project. Hence, conservation and revolution both confound one another and fuse together in opposition to a civilisation and a society that reclaim another tradition, Jewish-Christian, and another project, egalitarian.

Wotan, the central character of the Ring, is not only the Indo-European pre-Christian god of the first function, the unrecognisable noumenon of an extinct and unrepeatable religion, but is already the new post-humanist god: the New Man, who knows tragically that he has to take care of his destiny, of his own self-creation. By so doing, he tends towards the suprahuman.

For the tragedy of heroes and gods does not find realisation other than in the tragedy of Wotan: in a consciousness which knows and nevertheless wills. Hence, since everything is summarised and transcended in Wotan’s consciousness, as all the characters in the Ring are aspects of the purely human—Rein-menschliches—embodied in one person, Wotan, the Ring is psychodrama. Drama, that is, in which Wagner’s genius projects all the Leitbilder—which precede psychoanalysis by decades. Wotan sacrifices his most intimate will, suppressing what he most loves, Brünnhilde, surrounding her with fire. That fire is no other than Loge himself—the spirit who betrays Wotan—and is the very image of declining paganism accepting the fate of the Christian mask. However, his most intimate will is not destroyed: it lies dormant. Its presence invokes the person who will come to awaken it; and this is the end for which the god is waiting—the beginning of a new history: a regeneration.

Wagner & Nietzsche (ii)

There is an intimate relation between the work of Wagner and of Nietzsche. It is important to stress this relation, for Nietzsche himself made a major manoeuvre of distraction, intending to demonstrate—perhaps first of all to himself—that his work was independent of, and even opposed to, that of Richard Wagner. This exercise of concealment has strongly influenced the judgement of philosophers and intellectuals, who are naturally inclined to pay more attention to the ‘intellectual’ work of Nietzsche than to Wagner’s ‘artistic’ work.

When young, Nietzsche had prostrated himself before the altar of ‘the god Wagner,’ offering in homage The Birth of Tragedy, followed by Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. However, the ‘wonderful days at Tribschen’ were not to last. Nietzsche soon distanced himself from Wagner. The fervent disciple became an apostate: apologist became denigrator and uncompromising adversary. Nietzsche’s later works, The Case of Wagner and Nietzsche contra Wagner, give every appearance of being the venomous attacks of a former disciple against a former master. Wagner is a ‘seducer,’ a ‘corrupter,’ a ‘rattlesnake’: presenting himself as opposite to what he actually is. ‘Schopenhauerian,’ ‘life hater’—Wagner becomes the ne plus ultra of decadence. Worse, with the creation of Parsifal, he is seen to have fallen back into the Christian faith.

Having started with an assault on Wagner’s music—decadent art par excellence—Nietzsche concludes by condemning almost all German music for leading inevitably to Wagner. He sets ‘pure melody’—described as ‘Mediterranean’—against ‘harmony’—described as ‘Nordic.’ Frequently, his exegesis becomes mere caricature—as when, for example, he summarises the ‘intrigues’ of Wagnerian drama. At times his remarks become overtly malignant.

Nietzsche’s confrontation with Wagner has a tragic aspect. Nietzsche suffered greatly in distancing himself from the only man he had ever loved. However, this suffering arose from a kind of metaphysical jealousy. Nietzsche desired the place in history that would be accorded to Wagner. Hence, he needed to show that Wagner was not what he seemed—the creator of a new myth, a regenerator of history—nor could he be, since music was itself a ‘final art.’

Many have remarked on Nietzsche’s jealousy. Thomas Mann addressed Nietzsche’s love-hate relationship with Wagner in Pro and Contra Wagner. Stefan George—who reproached Nietzsche with having ‘betrayed’ Wagner—is more positive: ‘Without Wagner, no Birth of Tragedy, without the awakening initiated by Wagner, no Nietzsche.’ Although his jealousy was essentially intellectual, it crystallised around the person of Cosima Wagner. From the time of his first meeting with her at Tribschen (May 1869) Nietzsche was fascinated by her. He idealised her in the guise of Ariadne. Wagner was simultaneously Minotaur and Theseus, a human, all-too-human hero; he, Nietzsche, was the divine Dionysus. In relation to this there are many revealing passages in the work of Nietzsche—in particular the dialogue between Dionysus and Ariadne in Twilight of the Idols.

Nietzsche saw himself as the unique harbinger of perpetual becoming, eternal recurrence, and superman: only he had reached the foot of the abyss of decadence; only in him did the beginning find its origin. Nietzsche alone was the true Dionysus. The German public had allowed itself to be led astray by Wagner the seducer; Ariadne had mistaken him for God, and married him.

In short, Nietzsche, the philosopher of perpetual becoming, could not endure Wagner’s expression of the philosophy in music. Nietzsche established the philosophical myth of the superman (Übermensch). He explained its logic and created a language for it. However, the myth existed already in the form of Wagnerian opera. Nietzsche merely gave a name to what already existed in music—but he could never admit this.

The structure and elements of the suprahumanist myth are already present in Wagner’s ‘Wotan myth.’ In Nietzsche and in Wagner the same view of history, the same intuitive conception of man, predominates. Nietzsche’s ‘willing of the superman’ corresponds to Wotan’s ‘will to regenerate the world.’ To the ‘will to accept the end’ in Götterdämmerung corresponds the Zarathustrian amor fati, the new conscience of the ‘superior man.’ The temporal structure of the Wort-Ton-Drama, which represents the tragic history of humanity, is given a name by Nietzsche: ‘eternal recurrence’—‘linear’ representation of the historical sphere of becoming. The ‘high noontide’ of Zarathustra prefigures a similar breaking with time (Zeit-Umbruch)—evoked, in the final scene of Götterdämmerung, by the wonderful Leitmotiv which has already promised the regeneration of Siegmund through his son Siegfried. The ‘return to origins’—another essential element of myth in the Ring—is represented doubly in Nietzsche’s writing: by the exaltation of the ‘blond beast’ of the Indo-Europeans, and, at an artistic and cultural level, by pre-Socratic Greece. Both are lost forever, ‘historically unrenewable,’ and must be recreated just as, for Wagner, the ‘end of the gods’ is a prerequisite for the return of the gods.

In their respective works, Wagner and Nietzsche pursued the same end: the regeneration of history. The myth prefigures this aim and is also the means of attaining it. The myth is a ‘didactic account’ which is to create the new man in his own words. The kinship between the music dramas of Wagner and the poetical philosophy of Nietzsche is comparable to the kinship, within egalitarian myth, of different Christian theologies and democratic, socialist, and communist ideologies. If the kinship of Wagner to Nietzsche appears to be very close—as it is in fact—this is because both men mark the beginning of suprahumanist mythology: the moment of birth.

Wagner & Nietzsche (iii)

That they belong in the same ‘mythical camp’ does not, however, imply that in the myth they manifest the same ideological identity. In Richard Wagner in Bayreuth (1876), Wagner was still, for Nietzsche, a universal genius: simultaneously philosopher, historian, artist, master of diction and mythology, and mythic poet. In fact, Wagner the philosopher never succeeded in drawing philosophy from the myth created by Wagner the poet and musician. In his theoretical writing Wagner’s style is still that of Romanticism; and the mythical elements appear as if deformed by a discourse alien to them. Nietzsche realised this and became conscious of his superiority as a philosopher, a superiority Wagner was happy to acknowledge. Hence, Nietzsche’s opposition to Wagner on the grounds that his theoretical work was imposture was spurious.

However, Wagner and Nietzsche did genuinely diverge in the interpretations they gave to certain aspects of the civilisation and culture they execrated. In the triumph of the ‘Judaic principle’ Wagner identified and denounced the essential cause of the decline of humanity: the ‘poison’ he claimed was destroying all real culture. For Wagner this was a relatively recent phenomenon. He attributed it, somewhat naively, to the rising social influence of the Jews, and the resultant Jewish ascendancy in political, artistic, and cultural spheres. Consequently, the different ‘forms’ of German culture—and European culture, also, beginning with the religious form, Christianity—are negative, insofar as they have been ‘invaded’ and ‘perverted’ by the ‘Judaic principle.’ For Wagner, the necessary response to this was to revitalise the ‘Germanness’ of cultural and social forms, and to begin doing so meant removing Jewish influence. Inevitably, Wagner’s analysis auspicated social and political anti-Semitism on his part.

Nietzsche also considered the ‘Judaic principle’ had provoked the debasement of man: that it is at the source of ‘the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality’; that it initiated the revolt of the slaves; and that the West has been in decline since ‘God became a Jew.’ To this principle—‘a declaration of war against everything on earth that represents the ascending tendency of life, to that which has turned out well, to power, to beauty, to self-affirmation’—Nietzsche gives a socio-political definition, which he summarises as the principle of equality. For Nietzsche, however, this is not a recent phenomenon: it began with Christianity.

Christianity cannot be understood apart from its place of origin: it is a consequence of Jewry, a logical progression from it. Nietzsche’s anti-Judaism does not lead to anti-Semitism. He doubted the existence of a ‘Jewish people’ as such and believed that the Jews wished above all else to assimilate. On this basis all anti-Semitism is dangerous as it obliges the Jews to band together in self-defence. Furthermore, according to Nietzsche, the damage done is in any case irreparable: no preventive measures can check the decay of European civilisation. Nietzsche’s conclusion is that it would be best to accelerate the process of disintegration. Only on the ruins of Europe would it be possible to rebuild; only once Europeans have become a mass of innumerable slaves resigned to their fate might the master race arise from the abyss. In his autobiographical Ecce Homo, Nietzsche confirms that his ‘attack’ on Wagner is also an attack upon a ‘German nation which is becoming ever more lazy in spiritual matters, ever more impoverished in its instincts.’ The ‘blond beast’ must be ‘reconceived’ in the form of the future ‘good European.’ Nietzsche did not altogether abandon hope in the German people; he was unable to see to what other people might one day be awarded the honour of being the ‘first anti-Christian people of Europe.’ However, his condemnation of Bismarck’s Germany—according to him socialist and democratic—is uncompromising. Wagner’s ironical compromise with the Kaiserreich was another source of disagreement.

Wagner and Nietzsche fought in the same cause, but their strategies were opposed. Nietzsche’s initial enthusiasm, his subsequent reconsideration—and finally his intensified criticism—took place only within, and can only be explained by, the Wagnerian myth. Nietzsche was conscious, and spoke of, a Sternenfreundschaft: the friendship of two stars condemned in their predestined eternal course never to meet.

Moreover, Nietzsche qualified his venomous attack in The Case of Wagner: ‘I loved Wagner and no other . . . Needless to say, I allow no one the right to appropriate my present judgment on Wagner.’ Nietzsche saw his quarrel with Wagner as a family quarrel: his ‘anti-Wagnerian’ polemic should have been the concern only of those whose attachment was already to the myth of the superman and the theme of eternal recurrence.

Perhaps the true reason—the necessity of the ‘betrayal’ of the master—is to be found in the Apollonian commandment to every noble soul, to every ‘superior man,’ to discover himself and to realize himself. Where the egalitarian precept demands the imposition of a single and absolute truth—and, concomitantly, the adaptation of all to the same human model—the opposing precept necessarily pledges each person to the search for true identity in eagle-like solitude.

Wagner & Nietzsche (iv)

According to Nietzsche, with the creation of Parsifal, Wagner is seen to have fallen back into the Christian faith. A failed attempt to try to denigrate Wagner among suprahumanist partisans, not only because Parsifal, in its avowed intention to ‘redeem the redeemer’ (Erlösung dem Erlöser) is simply ‘scandalous’ from a Christian perspective, but also because its representation is intended to short-circuit and transfigure the Christian myth in the mind of the spectator, in order to better express values which are diametrically opposed to those advocated by all Christian denominations.

If we believe „Ecce Homo,“ in 1878 Nietzsche sent a copy of his book Human, All Too Human to Richard Wagner. At the same time Wagner sent Nietzsche a copy of the verse for his opera Parsifal. Nietzsche was to write that when he received this text, “I felt as if I heard an ominous sound – as if two swords had crossed.”

This is just Nietzsche’s pretext for polemics.

Wagner read the draft in prose of Parsifal to Nietzsche in Tribschen in 1869, two years before the latter wrote “The Birth of Tragedy”, his most Wagnerian text. In 1877, Nietzsche wrote a letter to Cosima Wagner dated Oct.10th in which he states: “The magnificent promise of “Parsifal” may offer consolation to us, whenever we need to be consoled”. Nietzsche had known of the existence of Parsifal, and its content, for a long time. Naturally, one may accept that his opinion on the matter had changed over the years, but the question remains: why did he need to falsify the chronology of these events? I suspect a “human-all-too-human” motive.

At the heart of Nietzsche’s criticism of Parsifal was the alleged ‚Schopenhauerian life hate‘ permeating the opera. Schopenhauer had certainly an important influence on Wagner, but his philosophy is ultimately just one of the elements, among others, in the Wagnerian creation. During the last years of his life, and while he was working on “Parsifal”, Wagner was also positively impressed by Gobineau’s “Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races”. As was usually the case with Wagner, he felt that the French diplomat was expressing what had already been intuited by him. The vision of a degraded humanity caused by the miscegenation of the “noble Aryan race” with “inferior races” left a deep imprint. Pessimistic visions of life and history always touched a chord in Wagner, but, both Schopenhauer’s metaphysical pessimism and Gobineau’s catastrophism were left aside in Wagner’s Weltanschauung. In “What Boots This Knowledge?”(1880), he wrote: “We recognise the cause of the fall of Historic Man, and the necessity of his regeneration; we believe in the possibility of such Regeneration, and devote ourselves to its carrying-through in every sense.”

“Parsifal” is a “religion of life”, a religion of “race” if you like (but not in a reductionist biological sense): at the end of the Bühnenweihfestspiel, the spear of Longinus (the phallus), now purified, and the Holy Grail (the uterus) are reunited, so that the “holy blood” may flow anew.

“Parsifal” is also a paraphrasis of the “Ring”, represented this time on a scene that takes us back to the legendary Middle Ages, impregnated, under Christian garments, with Celto-Germanic pagan symbols.

“Erlösung dem Erlöser” (‘redeem the redeemer’) constitutes the core of the “sacred festival”. The “redeemer” is Amfortas, who represents a Christianity which has been poisoned with Judaic dogmas and is incapable of giving satisfaction to the Grail Knights’s religious needs. Titurel, his father, represents, according to Wagner’s indications, Wotan, the ancient Indo-European religion.

According to the Wagnerian interpretation of European religion, “Parsifal” is intimately connected to the “Ring of the Nibelung” (see “Die Wibelungen” and “Art and Religion”). The introduction of Christianity in Europe would not have involved the rejection of the ancestral Indo-European religion’s intimate essence. It would not have replaced Wotan-Zeus-Jupiter, just put him in a state of “dormition”. Jesus, the redeeming hero, is a reincarnation of the pagan Naturgott (Siegfried), but is affected by a mortal wound, which makes him incapable of accomplishing his mission. The wound is the Judaic “infection”: the temptation (Kundry-Judaism), which Amfortas could not by his own nature resist, will be overcome by Parsifal, thanks to the memory of his mother Herzeleide (“the ancestral roots”, “the pure origin”).

In this sense, Wagner is also following Schopenhauer’s agenda: “We may therefore hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology. Perhaps the century has come in which the peoples of the Indo-European group of languages will again receive the sacred religions of their native countries; for they have again become ripe for these after having long gone astray”(Parerga and Paralipomena).

Yet, Wagner also considers that the historical need that derives from the present religious situation in Europe, in which the historical forms of religiosity are depraved, involves not only the “de-judaization” and abolition of Christianity, but also the death of the ancient pagan remnants, in order to create a higher synthesis, a higher “religion”, in which the human need of “transcendence” will be satisfied by the re-sacralization of Art. The realization on stage of the redemption-abolition of old religions is also the representation of a sacred ritual for a future community, a first step for the regeneration of history.

The “possibility of transcendence” for Egalitarianism takes place in the world beyond, in meta-physics; for Suprahumanism, on the other hand, it takes place in this world, in meta-history, through the announcement of the “Rein-Menschliches” or “purely-human” (the Nietzschean “Übermensch”).

The Aesir-Vanir War

Man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. This historical phase—initiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called ‘Biopolitical Revolution’—is extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx ‘the end of primitive communist society,’ by Sigmund Freud ‘the killing of the primal father,’ and by Claude Lévi-Strauss ‘the separation