General Preface to Critics and Would Be Critics

[T]here are frequent criticisms of my work. I post them. Often. There are criticisms of preference, pragmatism, or probability. But, as yet, no one has offered any material criticism of the work. No one.

All I get are pragmatisms from:

(a) young men who are very smart and prefer authoritarianism – because they have no experience organizing anything – even a family – at any scale,

(d) a range of men who cling to the hope of (authoritarian) religious restoration (not knowing how lucky we are to have escaped it.),

(b) nat-soc’s who prefer intolerant authoritarianism,

(c) young men who cling to the possibility of anarchism,

(e) the room temperature IQ crowd that attempts to participate or observe a discourse that is beyond their knowledge and ability, but is too impatient to wait for the full constitutional changes and the policies that arise from them that would bring them relief.

The only extant criticisms I can find, despite trying everything, are:

(a) people want a positive religion(supernaturalism), philosophy(sophism), pseudoscience, or narrative(excuse), not law, or policy that would benefit them;

(b) people want to preserve their right to advocate for supernatural, sophistry, pseudoscientific, or excuses, rather than do so truthfully (scientifically);

(c) that propertarianism’s grammars, operationalism, epistemology, and strict construction, are too hard for ordinary people to undrestand (not that they undrestand the calculus, programming, or the law as it stands today yet they live under them);

(d) because of these reasons it will not be possible to form a majority movement to enact those policies and that law producing those benefits.

In other words – they want people to agree with them on some given utilitarian falsehood, rather than produce a market for people who agree on utilitarian goods and truths.

But as to the work itself, there is no surviving criticism of:

(a) the grammars;
(b) or the epistemology;
(c) or the law;

… that I know of.

And ‘grown ups’ – meaning those of us who have built organizations of any scale, or worked large organizations, or in government, or in finance or in the judiciary, are quite well aware that the world operates by rules and those rules consists of legislation, regulation, and findings of law. And that everything else exists within it. Not because people believe in the law via positiva, but because they fear the consequences of not doing so.

And conversely that philosophy and religion are for those lacking agency to operate within that which is governed by the law.

In other words, if you argue with religion or philosophy or moralizing, rather than law it is evidence of lack of agency in material matters.

(a) The purpose of religion is regional social mindfulness.

(b) The purpose of philosophy is local personal mindfulness.

(c) The purpose of science is a universal language of truthful speech.

(d) The purpose of the NATURAL law is a universal method of prosecuting imposition of costs upon others involuntarily.

(e) The purpose of legislation and regulation is to enforce the terms of the local contracts in the production of commons.

The difference in the production of commons is determined by asian (dictatorial corporate), european(bipartite state vs citizen), anglo (egalitarian sovereign) presumptions. The semites do not produce commons other than religious, which only force continued devolution.

So, in relation to my work, my opinion is, that if you cannot argue against:

(a) the epistemology
(b) the construction of the law, and;
(c) the construction of any given constitution;
(c) the benefits (policies), and;
(d) the creation for a market of non-false religion, non-false philosophy, non-false science;

…then you don’t much matter other than preventing good people who are willing to act to obtain material benefits and the rewards of a society far more free of falsehoods – then you don’t matter.


People are happy to opine and presume knowledge.


(a) if you sit down, and try to write a constitution that cannot be violated and which ends the industrialization of propaganda, disinformation, sophism, pseudoscience, and deceit, in commercial financial, economic, and political spheres you will find that the problem is quite difficult.

(b) To do so requires a VIA-NEGATIVA epistemology of eliminating falsehoods. Which if you sit down and try to produce, is quite difficult. And once having done so

(c) if you sit down and try to produce a set of policies that eliminate commercial, financial, economic, political, and academic parasitism in all its forms, you will find it is quite difficult.

(e) If you sit down and try to produce a plan by which a small percentage of (costly) men can bring a government to its knees such that it has no choice but to enact this constitutional amendments, end parasitism, and free a people from predation and genocide, you will find it is somewhat hard to do.

Now, if you can find a one, single, other, person, who can do any ONE of those things, I’d like to meet that person.

If you can find that group of people to do all those things, I would love to know about them.

Because from where I’m sitting you folks haven’t got a single other person living today with anything other than wishful thinking and empty words.

And while I’d MUCH RATHER sit around and work on my tech company and reap the economic rewards, I am not (unlike critics) extirpating my frustration with hollow nonsense to mask my lack of agency and courage.

I am not afraid of dying. And I don’t lack agency. I’ve demonstrated my agency in every walk of life.

I have built companies of scale. I have built a body of thought on a scale only seen since the marxists and perhaps since locke, smith and hume. And much against my preference I’m building a body of people capable of teaching and communicating the work, the policies, and the revolution to those who would have it.

And if you had a criticism of anything material you would make it. However, what I see is nothing more than:

(a) lack of understanding, and straw manning because of it,
(b) self confidence absent evidence of demonstrated ability,
(c) moral conviction that is admirable,
(d) but lacking the courage to do more than gossip.

So make an argument, offer a competing alternative of equal or better scope and precision, or don’t waste my time.


Leave a Reply