1. Front Matter
    1. Table of Contents
    2. Forward
    3. The Preface
    4. On Style
  2. The Introduction
    1. The Program
    2. The Terms
    3. The Science
    4. The First Principle
    5. The Computation
    6. The Method
    7. The Synthesis
    8. The Law
    9. The Reforms
    10. Our Mission
  3. Part One – Laws of Nature
    1. Life (Biology)
    2. The Evolution of Man
    3. Biolgical Facilities
      1. Biology
    4. Brain Facilities
      1. 1. Gross Anatomy
      2. 2. The Cortex
      3. 3. Neurons
      4. 4. Columns
      5. 5. Vision
      6. 6. Hippocampus
      7. 7. Frontal Cortex
      8. 8. Circuits
      9. Summary Neural Economy
    5. Mental Faculties
      1. Faculties – Sensation
      2. Faculties – Embodiment
      3. Faculties – Sentience
      4. Faculties – Perception
      5. Faculties – Qualia
      6. Faculties – Sex – Physical Organization
      7. Faculties – Intuition – Valuation – Prediction
      8. Faculties – Consciousness
      9. Faculties – Attention
      10. Faculties – Reason (Spectrum)
      11. Faculties – Mind
      12. Summary Cognitive Economy
    6. Psychology (Before)
      1. Instincts
      2. Sex – Bias
      3. Emotions
      4. Aesthetics
      5. Personality
      6. Intelligence
      7. Agency
      8. Uncertainty
      9. Mindfulness
      10. Commensurability
      11. Compatibility
      12. Sortition
      13. Identity
    7. Interpersonal Psychology
      1. Cooperation
      2. Trust
      3. Self-Image
      4. Reptutation
      5. Morality (and Ethics)
      6. Virtues and Vices
      7. Moral Biases
      8. Rationality
      9. Cognitive Biases
      10. Summary Behavioral Economy
    8. Social Psychology (During)
      1. Compatibilism
      2. Organization
      3. Influence
      4. Conflict
    9. Sociology (Cooperationism)
      1. Cooperation (During)
        1. Economics – Time
        2. Markets
        3. Sustainable Networks
      2. Reproductive (Informal) Organization
        1. Reproduction – The Family
        2. Family, (Clan, Tribe) Capital
        3. Parenting
        4. Sorting – Class
        5. Sorting – Generations
      3. Commons (After)
        1. Human Capital
        2. Informal Institutions
        3. Culture
        4. Metaphysics
        5. Religion
        6. Education
        7. Training
        8. Art
        9. Summary Cultural Economy
    10. Politics
      1. Elites
        1. Financial and Commercial Elites
        2. Intellectuals
        3. Religious Elites
        4. Tribal Elites
        5. Political Elites
        6. Military Elites
      2. Formal Institutions
      3. Order of Institutions
      4. Politics within the Order
      5. The Nation
      6. The State
      7. Government
      8. Bureaucracy
      9. Scale: Civs Empires, Federations, and Leagues
      10. Military and War
      11. Summary Political Economy
    11. Summary of Part 2
  4. Part Three – Group Strategy
    1. Groups
      1. Human Evolution
      2. Human Variation
    2. Group Strategy (Introduction)
      1. Geography
      2. Competitors
      3. Military Strategy
      4. Relationship Between Military and Commoners
      5. Economic Strategy
      6. Group Ethics
      7. Elites and Institutions
      8. Institutions of Cultural Production
      9. Demographics
      10. Scale – Why Can and Can’t Some Scale
      11. Lifecycles
      12. Summary of Group Strategy
    3. Group Strategies
      1. European (European)
      2. Japanese (nippon, nihonjin)
      3. Chinese (Zh?ngguó, Huárén, Han) (East Asian)
      4. Indian (Bhartiy, Hindustani)
      5. Muslim (South Eurasian)
      6. Jewish (Diasporic Semitic)
      7. Gypsy (Diasporic Indic-Iranic)
      8. African (The Four Models)
  5. Part Four – The Law
    1. Language
      1. Logic
      2. Grammars
    2. Negotiation
      1. Epistemology
      2. Truth and Meaning
      3. Falsehood and Deceit
    3. Law
      1. Summary Of The Law (Solving the Institutional Problem)
    4. Applying the Law
    5. Government By The Law
    6. Strategy Under The Law
    7. Application of The Law
      1. Rent Seeking
      2. Sex Differences
  6. Part Five – What Went Wrong?
    1. Our Failures
      1. Holes In Our Law
      2. False Promise of the Enlightenment
      3. Delayed Phase of the Scientific Revolution
      4. Ignorance of our Group Strategy
      5. Ignorance of our domestication of war
      6. Innovations in Deceit
      7. Restoration of Total War
    2. Inevitable Unavoidable Consequences – What Will Occur vs What Must Be Done
  7. Part Seven – The Reforms
    1. A Reformation: The Introduction
    2. Introduction To The Declaration of Reformation
    3. The Declaration
    4. The Declaration Speech
    5. The Simple Version of Our Goals – For Normal People. 😉
    6. List of The Major Reforms
    7. Constitution: The Preamble
    8. Constitution: Article 0 – Nature
    9. Constitution: Man
    10. Constitution: Rule of Law
    11. Constitution: Violations of The Law
    12. Constitution: Rights and Obligation
    13. Constitution: The Courts
    14. Constitution: The State
    15. Constitution: The Government of the State
    16. Constitution: The Government of the Several States
    17. Constitution: The Treasury
    18. Constitution: The Insurer of Last Resort
    19. Constitution: The Military
    20. Constitution – The Military – Research
    21. Constitution – The Interior
    22. Constitution: The Territories, Monuments, Arts, and Letters
    23. Constitution: The Commons
    24. Constitution: The Economy
    25. Constitution: Commerce and Cooperation
    26. Constitution: The People
    27. Constitution: Fitness, Religion, Education, Training
    28. Constitution: Mating, Marriage, Family
    29. Constitution: Rules of Devolution
    30. Constitution: Letter of Marque
  8. Part Eight – The Conflict
    1. Explaining The Conflict of Our Age
    2. The Current Conflict Of Civilizations
    3. Civilizational Differences in Strategy and Conflict
    4. Methods of Conflict
    5. The Conflict Series
    6. Conflict 1: Thesis
    7. Conflict 2: The Evolutionary Stage
    8. Conflict 3: The Evolution of Man
    9. Conflict 4: Conquest of the World
    10. Conflict 5: The Rebirth of Man
    11. Conflict 6: Analysis and Explanation
    12. Conflict 7: The Culture of Indo Europeans
    13. Conflict 8: The Conquest of Europe
    14. Conflict 9: The Conquest of the Mediterranean
    15. Conflict 10: Medieval Genetic Pacification
    16. Conflict 11: The Second Great Divergence
    17. Conflict 12: Civilizational Strategies
    18. Conflict 13: European Group Strategy
    19. Conflict 14: Semitic Group Strategy
    20. Conflict 15: Cause and Cure
  9. Part Nine – The Choice (Episodes)
    1. The Choice – and Our Civilization’s Choices
      1. We Have No Choice. Equality in Reciprocity or In Poverty
      2. We Have No Choice: I’m Not Interested in Repeating Decades of Failure.
      3. The Choice – Episode 0001 – Why The Choice?
      4. The Choice – Episode 0002 – The End of History – European and Jewish Elites and Their Opposing Strategies.
      5. The Choice – Episode 0005 – Our Civilization’s Next Great Enterprise
      6. The Choice – Episode 13 – The Whiteness Conspiracy Theory – The Economics of Whiteness Part One
      7. The Choice – Episode 14 – The Whiteness Conspiracy Theory – Part Two – The Whiteness Infographic
      8. The Choice – Episode 15 – Whiteness Conspiracy Theory: The Economics of Whiteness, Part Three – White Privilege
      9. The Choice – Episode 16 – Whiteness conspiracy theory: The Economics of Whiteness, Part Four: The Big Lie: Hating Whites As A Proxy for Hating God.
      10. The Choice – Episode 17 – Whiteness conspiracy theory: The Economics of Whiteness, Part Five: What White Privilege Would Look Like if We Had It
      11. The Choice: The Indefensibility of the War Against Western Civilization
    2. Our Challenge
      1. The Choice – Episode 12 – Popularity vs Necessity – The Problem of Conservative Anti-Intellectualism
      2. The Choice – Episode 0003 – Q&A: Catholicism, Christianity, Trifunctionalism, and Natural Law.
      3. The Choice – Episode 11 – We’re Only United In Our Fight For Self Determination by Self Determined Means
    3. The Prosecution
      1. Judgement and Sentencing of The Left
      2. Introduction to the Prosecution of the Enemy
      3. The Summary and Remedy
      4. Naming The Enemy, Accusing Them of Their Crimes…
      5. The Conflict Between Our Group Strategies.
      6. The Explanation of Abrahamism and The Abrahamic Method of Warfare Against Civilization Nature and Evolution.
      7. We Know The Name of the Devil.
      8. The Prewar Common Knowledge and Postwar Taboo: The Jewish Question
      9. No, Jews Are Not American
      10. No the Jews Always Had Choices – They Chose
      11. We Gave Them The Choice. They Chose Poorly.
      12. What Is To Be Done?
      13. We Choose: Prosecution, Persecution, Punishment, Eradication.
    4. Our Strategy
      1. The Choice – Episode 0019 – Anchored By Our First Institutions – We Were All Wrong – Our Germanic Origins Part One
      2. The Choice – Episode 0020 – Germanic Origins of The American Constitution – Our Germanic Origins Part Two
      3. The Choice – Episode 0021 – Correcting The Failures of The American Constitution – Our Germanic Origins – Part Three
      4. The Choice – Episode 0022: Following the Founders : A Suit Against The Sate: I Don’t Think I’m Influential. But If I Am Then I’ll Use It.
      5. The Choice – Episode 0006 – A Call To Revolution – The Declaration Speech
      6. The Choice – Episode 0036 – A Counter-Revolution to Compete with the Leftists – The Course and Conduct of a Civil War
    5. When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law
  10. Conclusion (Wrap Up)
  11. Glossary
  12. Appendix
  13. Index
  14. Back Matter-Transparency
  15. Our Choices Going Forward

2.The Introduction #


(UNDONE: The introduction typically describes the scope of the document and gives the brief explanation or summary of the document. It may also explain certain elements that are important to the essay if explanations are not part of the main text. The readers can have an idea about the following text before they actually start reading it.)


Our Next Great Enterprise

“Europeans do not know how to liveunless
they are engaged in some great enterprise.
When this is lacking, they grow petty
and feeble and their souls disintegrate.”
Ortega y Gasset

[W]e have the fortune to live in interesting times – and in these interesting times, we must, even if reluctantly, refresh our souls, people, and civilization, and engage in a great enterprise. This work explains that next great enterprise.


What Is This Book About? A Reformation.

In every great transformational era cast off the superstitions, errors, justifications, and lies of the prior; and in doing so cause those who either benefit 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, overconsumption, 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.

That failure to reform or transform is why civilizations fail. Those civilizations that do transform, adapt, and evolve, do so for the good reasons – reasons we’ll discuss later on.

Transformational Eras

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 Crisis of Our Age

( … The problem of this age of transition…. )


Origins, Yali’s Question

( … ) Yali’s Question

  • (Begin with a goal.) narrative of yali’s question….
  • What happened to our cargo?

So, What Went Wrong?

  • So, the real question is, what went wrong?
  • And first we must understand what went right.
  • And we must understand that what circumstances changed such that what we did in the past is no longer valuable, useful, possible today and it may be harmful.
  • And this cuases us to deeply reform almost everything in our presumptions, thinking, culture and institutions as much or more than we reformed our thinking, culture, and institutions in the reformation, industrial, and scientific revolutions

( … )

The Problem of Blame

causality, responsibility, vs blame


True and False vs Desirable and Undesirable

( … )


The Problem of Cost of Bias, Anchoring, and Change

( … bias … )

The  Problem of Metaphysics, Anchoring, and Change

( … )

The Failure to Capture Western Civilizational Strategy 

(no book)

The Innovation of Western Civilizational Strategy


The Naive Presumption of Western Metaphysics, Strategy, Religion, Philosophy, Law, and Science

(victorian nonsense etc)

The Naive Presumption of  Mathiness

( … )

The Failure of the Computational Revolution


The Failure to Complete the Scientific Revolution


The Failure of Philosophy


The Failure of Religion


The Failure of the Adademy


The Failure of the Court


The Failure of the Constitution


The Failure of the State


The Failure of the Monarchies


The Failure of the Military


The Counter-Revolution Against The Scientific Revolution

The Industrialization of Lying

The Big Lies

The Method of Lying

The Cycles of History

( … )


( … )

  • War by other means.
  • war (n.): late Old English wyrre, werre “large-scale military conflict,” from Old North French werre “war” (Old French guerre “difficulty, dispute; hostility; fight, combat, war;” Modern French guerre), from Frankish *werra, from Proto-Germanic *werz-a- (source also of Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, German verwirren “to confuse, perplex”), from PIE *wers– (1) “to confuse, mix up”. Cognates suggest the original sense was “to bring into confusion.” the opposite of order: Chaos. physical disorder, vs. social and informational disorder.
  • NOTE: The nature of an enemy (answer Brad’s want of clarity on the intentionality of an enemy) –They think they’re right (they’re wrong)
  • NOTE: (The solution…defeat an enemy on its terms.)



(great filter)



( aug , 25 conv w dr brad  caontitutino and law) constructive proof resulting in scientific, constitution, law and policy… ) the overarching theme of the work is that the law can be and is optimally a science consistent with the rest of the science, and provides the broadest scope of decidability across all the sciences. )


The Transcendence of Man

( … )


(list of revolutions – how each failed) oversimplification… church fail, fail because of church…

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 ir-reciprocal and un-truthful speech. It’s a large project that reforms and modernizes every discipline.

This Completed Method (decidability).

The End of Warfare, the Suppression of War, Treason, Sedition, and Undermining,

The Eradication of False Promise and Deceit

The eradication of error, bias, deceit, fraud, and false promise from the commercial, financial, economic, political and strategic commons

The Restoration of The High Trust Society.


Why Is this Reformation Possible?


“Solves an Ancient Problem”


What Is It?

Part of positioning P-Law requires ending Confusion between Science, Logic, Law, and Philosophy. Logic says what must be, Science says what is, Law decides conflicts, Philosophy assists us in making choices – hopefully within the limits of law, science ,and logic. And Theology and Mythology provide us with wisdom that has survived over time in making those choices.

We can refer to the P-Law as any one of the following:

  • The Completion of the Scientific Method
  • The Science of Decidability across all domains
  • The Science of Law: truth, testimony, reciprocity, and cooperation as the application of decidability across all domains.

Why the science of cooperation?

  • QUESTION: What is the positive utility of resolving differences between humans other than to produce cooperation at the least possible friction?
  • ANSWER: The only reason we need to know what is true, moral, and survivable, is to resolve disputes, resolve differences of knowledge, and produce as many reciprocally rewarding compromises as possible.


What Does It Consist Of?

  • The Very Simple Law of the Universe
  •  Methodology
    • The Completion of the Scientific Method
    • The Science of Decidability
    • The Formal Logic, Vocabulary, and Grammar of Decidability
  • Applied Methodology
    • Application to the Sciences
    • The Unification of the Sciences
    • The Formal Logic of the Sciences  (the Wilsonian synthesis)
  • Explanation of Man
    • The Explanation of Human Evolution and Human Behavior
    • The Explanation of individual, sex, group, and Civilizational Differences
    • The First Complete Statement of The Group Strategy of Western Civilization
    • An Explanation of our Present and Past Conflicts
    • An Explanation of Future Possibilities (including the Great Filter).
  • Solution to the Conflict of our Age
    • A Universal Constitution and a Body of Law
    • A Set of Legislative and Policy Reforms
    • A moral license to demand those reforms
    • A means of revolution in the absence of reform

What’s The Objective? (Mission)

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 choice of cooperation.”

( .. )

Provide a general understanding

Repair a catastrophic error….

prevent another dark age ….

restore the evolutionary trajectory of western civilization.

A set of reforms

An end to the war of civilizations


What Is The Promise?

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 Promise: The P-Program is An Evolutionary Leap (Duplicate)

The P-Program is to the social sciences of psychology, sociology, cooperation, group strategy, politics, economics, law, and decidability (science) as:

-As Aristotle and Epicurus were to Plato and Socrates
-As Geometry was to Arithmetic
-As Darwin was to Biology
-As Menger was to Economics
-And as Nietzsche was to the European Aesthetic Restoration

The P-Program completes the failed revolution in the behavioral sciences (individual psychological, group social) prevented by the pseudoscientific revolutions against the Anglo-Italian restoration of Classical and Ancestral European thought and civilization. In particular against the Darwinian era’s explanation for the disproportionate rate of evolution of western civilization in the bronze, iron, and modern(steel) ages.

P-Law combines multiple fields but for most it will appear as a combination of the foundations of math, programmatic logic, cognitive science, economics, and law.


It’s Novel But It’s Not Hard

“P-law has the effect of being so intellectually inaccessible and dense initially that it discourages a person from trying; then when you learn it, you mysteriously perceive it as almost too simple to believe. Yet, you still understand it’s complex. … That’s been my experience.”- T. Q.

You should treat this section of the P-method like learning to diagram sentences, but having to fill in what’s missing, and correcting term use.

You don’t have to speak in P-Logic/P-Law. You just use it for analysis like any other logic.

It is like many other subjects in that it appears complex upfront because you are used to depending on intuition. So it’s harder than say math or programming. Because you are unaware of how much you think you’re reasoning, vs how much you’re just intuiting.

But the vocabulary is smaller than it appears at first, and the general concepts are fairly simple. Like arithmetic, there are a small number of basic rules. Applying them simply requires repetition.

It takes quite smart people (high IQ) at least six months.

You can benefit from the general findings of it even if you never reach the point where you can write law or proofs in it. (some people just deal with HTML, and some people write systems programs)

It Will Surprise You

You will discover that almost all of us are ‘bots’s running on a very simple operating system, very buggy software, with a very complex user interface.

Your first reaction will be to have greater empathy for those who are running buggy software (bad ideas). The world will make sense. Always.

If you are lucky, you will discover how to achieve full ‘consciousness’ (free will) – with deliberate control over your intuitions and choices. And to do so without denying reality, or struggling to find others with which to social construct the illusion of an alternate reality.

The challege is caused by ‘feels vs reals’: The ‘feels’ side of the spectrum must feel it before they can understand it. The “reals’ side of the spectrum must understand it before they can feel it. It’s a journey for both sides of the spectrum.

Knowledge is Not Change, Only Potential For It

No parasite has every been convinced to give up parasitism upon a host.

Every increase (by law) in the suppression of parasitism (Irreciprocity) has been resisted by the practitioners, for whom productive work is less desirable and profitable than crime.

Some criminal organizations evolve into institutions, and some institutions evolve in to criminal organizations, and the argument is that any and all organizations of scale will eventually turn into criminal organizations in one way or another.

So while much scientific falsification of ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud – and organized crime – is always met with resistance. The greatest resistance we meet is from people, groups, classes, cultures, and indeed, entire civilizations that operate as organized crime. (think the catholic church in the past, and the university that replaced it today, and the government agencies that are operating in their interests given the past century not our interests given this century.)

. . .

Is This a Work of Ideology, Philosophy, Law, or Science?

Part of positioning this work requires ending Confusion between Science, Logic, Law, Philosophy, Theology, and Ideology. Logic says what must be, Science says what is, Law decides conflicts, Philosophy assists us in making choices – hopefully within the limits of law, science ,and logic. And Theology and Mythology provide us with wisdom that has survived over time in making those choices. And ideology is just a political philosophy that exludes the interests of competing philosophies.

So to answer that question we’ll need to disambiguate a few terms. Maybe more than a few:

  • Local Conditions: The geography, climate, resources, means of production, hetero or homogeneity of the population, number of competitors, differences in development or productivity vs competitors.
  • Group Strategy: A strategy of competitive survival given the local conditions, the relationship between the powerful(military) and the powerless (peasantry), and the order of institutions (military, religious, commercial) that evolved.
  • Morality: a set of habits, norms, traditions constituting informal, self-perpetuating institutions, that proscribe and prescribe behavior, to maintain Reciprocity and Proportionality within the Group Strategy under Local Conditions, thereby persisting cooperation, and preventing conflict, violence, retaliation cycles, and defection from the group.
  • Metaphysics: a set of unconscious presumptions (~axioms) upon which all existence and value judgments in a group, class, nation, civilization depend, that perpetuate, justify, and advocate a group strategy.
  • Mythology: a set of narratives for intergenerational transfer (transmission) of Morality, Metaphysics, Group Strategy, in local conditions.
  • Wisdom Literature: a set of essays opinions arguments for intergenerational transfer (transmission) of Morality, Metaphysics, Group Strategy, in local conditions.
  • Organized Religion and Unorganized Religion: A set of private and public rituals that provide mindfulness to assist in the tolerance for costs and benefits of the mythology, metaphysics, group strategy, and local conditions, given our genetic variations in neuroticism (stress, uncertainty, fear, anxiety, worry ).  In other words, religions are a simple means of compensating for increases in inequality in increasing divisions of labor. Religions with rituals provide mindfulness (cognitive, psychological, emotional, social stress reduction) by providing a universal system of behavioral weights and measures that insulate the individual from social and psychological effects (anxiety) of evolutionary pressures (competition, decline in perception of value to the group) given the alienation that occurs as populations increase, division of labor increases, and the psychological and social security of the individual decreases.). Unorganized religion develops organically without a formal institutional structure to govern it and extract revenues by it.  An organized religion develops deliberately using a formal institution and a means of extracting revenue to pay for it and its members. A ‘book’ can produce a formal institution just like science and contract law can produce a formal institution of specialists, because the book provides some notion of decidability at the cost of limited rotation (adaptation, evolution).
  • Philosophy: The use of reason to produce a system of decidability, by producing a system of measurement, thereby allowing us to systematically organizing our thoughts, to produce understanding, advice, or decisions – of any scope, from a single topic, subject, condition, to all of human experience.
    • Natural philosophy: the empirical evidence of the history of the development of Natural Philosophy refers to what we consider the science of ‘what is’ rather than ‘what may be good or preferable’.
    • Logic (informal): The use of Logics by human reason refer to the hierarchy of tools (methods) used to construct philosophical arguments, by testing the coherence, correspondence, consistency, inconsistency, and contradiction between sets of states consisting of methods and properties testable by human senses and perception.
    • Philosophy (Proper): We can identify and categorize a set of functions that philosophers have fulfilled throughout history.
      • Disambiguation: Think Socrates. What are we taking for granted? Let’s disambiguate these terms and ideas that we use, and discover if we understand them or not, and if what we think of them is true or not.
      • Investigation: Think Democritus and Aristotle: theorizing how man, society, politics, civilizations, the world, and the universe functions, to see if we can discover general rules.
      • Integration: The present and long term
      • Proposition (Theorizing):
      • Reformation (Recommending): that the middle and upper-middle classes that lack political power produce thought leadership that makes a rational and moral appeal to a group with military, economic, political, social, familial, or religious power for the purpose of suggesting (recommending, demanding) change by one or more of those formal(State, religion, military), semi-formal(marriage), or informal(norms) institutions. In this sense, philosophy recommends what is “preferable, wise, or good”.
      • Bridging: Providing bridge between theology and politics, that renders religion (at least non-scriptural religion) debatable and modifiable.
      • The Problems of Philosophy: (a) Incommensurability due to arbitrary axioms rather than laws of nature produces internal consistency without external dependency or correspondence, especially dependency on costs, incentives for people in the competitive sexual, social, economic, political, strategic marketplaces. (b) self-serving bias. Classes exist and will always exist, and there is nothing that can be done about it as long as there is an asymmetry between the biological capability of some segment of the population and the means of cooperation and production available to that population in competition with the rest of regional or world populations. As such all philosophy tends to favor a class interest. And we sell class philosophies in order to resist, advance, obtain, or hold power, when power is the only means to circumvent the dependence on self-determination by self-determined means in the present context.
      • Note: We categorize western wisdom literature as philosophy. Chinese wisdom literature is just wisdom literature using ‘reasonableness’. Indian wisdom literature seems to have hit a dead-end very early after the first century and while it was as promising then as the Greek, I can’t comment on it today. Semitic wisdom literature might have emerged in response to the Islamic import of European, Indian, and Egyptian knowledge, but fell to the fundamentalist resurgence among the Arabs in the tenth century. So out of habit, we use the terms philosophy, law, logic, and science to refer to the relative equivalent in each civilization. However, no only Europeans practiced science, logic, philosophy, and law as we understand it: as testimony to that which is observable, where observable consists of both physical (external), and logical(internal) observations.
    • Secular Theology(sedating emotional): Applies largely to the German enlightenment and present continental philosophers who have sought to produce a secular rational alternative to scriptural certainty. This includes Kant and Hegel through the more recent Heidegger.
    • Pseudoscience (physical): Applies largely to the German-Ashkenazi  Jewish counter-enlightenment that sought to repeat the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic counter-revolution against the West beginning with Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Gramsci, through the present.
    • Sophistry (verbal): Applies largely to the French (Rousseu) “enlightenment,  counter-revolution against anglo empiricism, and the French-Ashkenazi Jewish counter-enlightenment we call postmodernism, of Derrida, Foucault et al.
    • Ideology (reactive emotional): Ideology refers to the use of emotion to agitate activism under democratic institutions, in order to increase the priority of one set of goals over another regardless of their truth, reciprocity, utility, or consequence. Applies to the Jewish Marxist, German and Italian Fascist, American PC-Woke, American Anti-Western-Anti-Witness movements.
    • Critique: Applies to the combination of denial, undermining, propaganda, ideology, sophistry, pseudoscience, and secular theology to undermine formal, semi-formal, and informal institutions of cultural and informational production rather than offering a competing and equally criticizable solution.
  • Law (Tradition, Legislation, Regulation, Command): the logic of decidability within a group society or polity, that is enforced by the insurance of enforcement, by the members of the familial, social and (or) political institutions. “Laws must be insured and require an insurer, or insurers, or they are not laws, but habits, norms, and traditions.” However, there are at least four theories of Law:
    • Natural Law (Scientific Law): The catalog of the discovery of violations of the natural demand for self-determination by self-determined means, sovereignty in demonstrated interests, and reciprocity in action, and reciprocal insurance of all of the above.
    • Positive Law (Man-Made Law):
      • Rights law: Any command that enforces arbitrarily declared rights, produced by any political process capable of enforcing it.
      • Procedure Law: Any command issued by any political process capable of enforcing it.
      • Command Law: any command issued by any authority capable of enforcing it.
  • Engineering: The applied science of organizing forces, materials, and/or behaviors to produce evidentiary ends. Engineering includes possibilities, costs, and incentives. More importantly, Philosophy, Politics, Law, and Science most often do not.
  • Science: Science consists of the discipline of producing increasingly parsimonious testimony that iteratively (gradually) is reducible to a formal operational logic at each stage of the complexity of stable relations. We think of this hierarchy as physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, and the rest of the fields. But just to add confusion, in the literature we refer to four sciences:
    • Formal Sciences: The Logics: the hierarchies of vocabulary, grammar, and logic.
    • Physical Sciences: Those systems of deterministic operations.
    • Behavioral Sciences: Those systems of semi-deterministic operations
    • Applied Sciences: ( … )
    • Evolutionary Sciences: The outcome of physical and behavioral operations.
  • Logic (Verbal, Set Logic): linguistic expression consisting of vocabulary(references), operations (actions), grammar, syntax, logic, and paradigm for use as a system of measurement providing us with tests of consistency correspondence, coherence, completeness between properties, and methods of instances and sets.
  • Mathematics (Positional Logic): A linguistic logic of reference-independent, scale-independent, positional names. It is the most simple paradigm, logic, grammar, and vocabulary possible for testing constant-relations because numbers (positional names) possess only one property: position, which serves as a single, unique, unambiguous, non-deflatable, non-conflatable, non-inflatable, constant relation. And as such is the optimum system of measurement for constant relations.
    Note: the frailty of mathematics is also its limitation in that not all computable results are expressible in mathematical descriptions. (See Mathematical Reducibility).
  • Human Logical Facility: the direction of our auto-association, attention, recursion, permutation, and wayfinding (reason), to the tests of consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness.
  • Human Sense, Perception, and Memory: biological instrumentation (nerves, neurons) that together organize various sensations into networks of objects, environments, backgrounds, places, locations, episodes, and predictions by competition for consistency, correspondence, and coherence, over time.

Then, as such:

  • Law decides matters of disputes
    • Science produces testimony of relations
    • Logic tests our claims using relations
    • Mathematics measures constant relations
  • Philosophy suggests(argues) goods, preferences, choices
    • Literature educates (Suggests)
    • History educates (suggests)
  • Theology claims(demands) obedience (power) via supernatural(fictitious) authority
    • Mythology educates (Indoctrinates)
  • Ideology advocates (excites, offends) for Power (regardless of merit)
    • Propaganda, Disinformation, and Deceit (Deceives)

Then as such:

  • If any truth claim is inconsistent across the spectrum of Science, Logic, Morality, Law, and Evolutionary Consequence: then it is not scientific, logical, moral, lawful, or ‘good’. The present disconnect between moral and lawful is delegitimizing our governments. It’s easily fixed and you’d be surprised how frequently right your intuitions are. And we’ll explain why.
  • If, as we will demonstrate, decidability means “objectively, logically consistent, operationally possible, and empirically evident, and survivably persistent, regardless of subjective intuition or preference” then within any group, given any group strategy, our morality, our metaphysics, our means of persuasion, our mythology, our religion, our institutions, and our laws may differ. But between people of different groups, the law is universally applicable and universally decidable. So all conflicts within and across groups are decidable, and the science and logic of morality is absolute, not relative. Groups just evolve moral, amoral, and immoral norms, traditions, institutions, and laws by accident of circumstance, ignorance, error, presumption, and incompetence – especially the incompetence of the well-meaning. This is why international law like international science and mathematics slowly approaches consistency and coherence with science, logic, and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
  • While science, logic, and law may decide the true and reciprocal, or false and irreciprocal, this does not say anything about individual or group choice, preference or good within the true and reciprocal and positively consequential, and outside of the false and irreciprocal and negatively consequential. Only philosophy may decide the preferable, and only groups in an agreement may decide the good.

Then, in answer to the question of “Is this ideology, philosophy, science, logic, or law?

  • This work is a science, operational logic, and law for the purpose of suppression, prohibition, and if necessary the punishment of, critique, ideology, sophistry, pseudoscience, secular theology, theology, and religion that is a violation of science, logic, morality, and the laws of man, nature, and nature’s god, thereby limiting political discourse to the true and moral and therefore scientific, logical, lawful, and free of crimes against the individual, group, nation, civilization, race, and mankind.
  • The foundation of this work is a formal, operational, logic of testimony by which we can falsify (test) any proposition within and across all human knowledge (disciplines). It might seem that such a thing is impossible, but thankfully it’s not – it was just very difficult to discover, capture, and produce. And we will explain why it was hard to do so later on in our journey.
  • Everything else in this work evolves out of that methodology. Most of this work teaches, applies, and explains human experience, behavior, and knowledge using this methodology.

And, if the means of decidability in logic (verbal), science (observable), operationalism (sequence of actions), and law (conflict) is consistent, and the scope of decidability in logic, science, operationalism, differ, but logic, science, and operationalism are included in the decidability of law:

  • Then this work is reducible to a Law: Complete, Universal, Decidability.

If you can follow that chain of reasoning, then you’ll be able to follow most of the reasoning in this work. Because that’s a simple example of using it: disambiguation, deflation, and operationalization, by serialization into first principles (causes), that eliminate the opportunity for exploitation of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, deceit, fraud, and denial, by prevention of distraction, suggestion, conflation, inflation, fabricating (“fictioning”), fictionalism(sophistry-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, theology-occult), and deceit, producing an operational logic of first principles from the first principle of the universe: entropy.

A Prophet, Philosopher, Lawgiver, Logician, Scientist?

Let’s frame the question differently.

We are what we do. I am, what I do – as are all of us. And in the past, what I do was called philosophy because it consists of integrating the findings of the sciences into present understanding and reorganizing present understanding to conform to or take advantage of that increase in knowledge. And then to provie one or more sets of options and opportunities that we may take advantage of, including old beliefs, habits, and institutions we might abandon, given this new understanding. This is and this remains, the only function of a philosopher that I know of. And I don’t see an end to this need – ever. I see only the need to suppress, prohibit, and punish those who sell frauds and deceits under the pretext of such insight.

As such I’m acting as a Philosopher.

The methodology of this project consisted of investigation, disambiguation, operationalization, thereby identifying first principles (causality), general rules (laws of nature) and producing measurements and testimony in every possible field of human inquiry, across all scales of human experience, in which there is any meaningful legal dispute.

As such I’m acting as a Scientist.

The end result of this investigation, disambiguation, operationalization, and testimony, as is the end result of any science, consists of a work of measurement using vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax, consisting of an operational logic of decidability across all human domains.

As such I’m acting as a Logician.

The end result of the vocabulary, grammar, logic, and science applied to law is the completion of the European, Germanic, Anglo, American development of a scientific foundation of law, a constitution embodying that scientific law, and rights, obligations, inalienations under that law, and system of government, and set of polities according to that law.

As such I’m acting as a Lawgiver.

The end result of the study of the evolution of man and comparative civilizations and their institutions and outcomes is a deterministic prediction of the possible futures of man and the limited time window we have to achieve certain ends.

As such I’m acting both a historian and as a foreteller of future events.

The long-term consequence of the vocabulary, grammar, logic, science, law, government, and policies is a demand for a reformation of religion that ‘non-false’ just like the science, logic, law, and all the rest of life under the Law would not be false.  One of the outcomes of this project was the ‘sciencing’ of Christianity and a path forward for reformation of at least the Catholic church to suit the new understanding of religion, polity, society, economics, and science.

So in that sense, I’m acting as a Theologian.

So given that I can and do claim that this science, logic, and law consists of the science, logic, and laws of the universe, and therefore of man, nature, and nature’s god, then I can and do claim that any ideology, philosophy, religion, or theology that is in conflict with these laws is false and a work of ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud or warfare.

So in this sense, at least in the abstract, I’m acting as a Prophet.

So which? Prophet, Theologian, Forteller(Futurist), Lawgiver, Logician, Scientist, Philosopher? Do these labels even mean anything relevant any longer? I don’t know. I’ve thought about it quite a lot and I’m still unsure.

But if science, logic, law, philosophy, theology, and group strategy are consistent, commensurable, correspondent, possible, and produce evolutionary survival, then every step of that spectrum is both truthful in expression, true in operation, true in prescription, and true in outcome, and as such these terms merely disambiguate degrees of precision in the spectrum of grammars we used to describe the one most parsimonious ‘true’ paradigm.

So, of those terms, if I had to choose one, I’d choose Lawgiver. But I assume the label philosopher will stick regardless of my wants or feelings.


How To Read This Book

( … )

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.


. . .

Who Is The Audience

  • The Curious Who would like to learn something new – even if it’s only to learn that such a thing as The Law exists.
  • Psychologists and Psychiatrists – who want to convert their discipline into a science, commensurable with the rest of the sciences, and to succeed in assisting their patients to understand themselves and what they can do about it.
  • Philosophers Who would prefer to speak in a scientific rather than literary prose – and prevent themselves from obsolescence.
  • Jurists that seek a basis for their intuitions that it is possible to create a formal and algorithmic body of law.
  • Activists Seeking political change regardless of political and moral bias.
  • Revolutionaries The world over who seek a shovel-ready solution to political orders in modernity
  • Politicians Looking for solutions to the transformation of the post-communist-capitalist world.
  • Artificial intelligence researchers and developers who desire to solve the problem of rational, ethical, and moral general artificial intelligence.
  • Software developers Working in various monetary substitutes who are seeking a language that more readily explains their ambitions.


We all carry our biases. I am an American of English, anglo-Saxon, Norman, and French extraction, raised Catholic but cognitively and psychologically aligned with the Whigs, Tories, Episcopalians, and Church of England. I was raised in the Puritan and Aristocratic traditions in an educated middle-class family, one side of which was rather privileged. And in that tradition, like the Founders, a Classical Liberal or Anglo Libertarian – not to be confused with the Jewish libertarians such as Rand, Rothbard and their javelina ideologies. Among the founders, there were two factions – the British that was skeptical of man, whose archetype was John Adams, and the French optimism of man, whose American archetype was Jefferson. As in most of life, I was optimistically Jeffersonian when young, and with the experience of life developed the skepticism of Adams if not the extreme skepticism of Hobbes or Schmidt. As an intellectual I consider myself completing the early 20th-century project of Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brower, Hilbert, which was overwhelmed by postwar pseudoscience, just as the British empirical revolution was somewhat overwhelmed by French (Rousseau) and German (Kant) sophistry. A condition from which I among others have sought to recover our civilization from this new reformation of mysticism.  In that sense, all three archetypes of that enlightenment among our Founders were skeptical of man but sought different means of ameliorating our baser instincts.


Every author must decide which voice he will use for his purposes:

  • The voice of Authority: The General, the Judge, the Statesman;
  • The voice of Mentor: The Scientist, Philosopher, The Professor, The Advisor;
  • The voice of Entertainer: The Narrator, the ( … )
  • The voice of Friendship and Care:  ( … )
  • The voice of Comfort and Apology:  ( … )

This book is a work of logic, science, and law. As such I struggle to maintain the voice of the mentor despite that this book is a work composed in the vocabulary, grammar, and logic, and with the intentions of kings, generals, judges, and those few statesmen among our politicians who still endeavor to speak the truth. So accept my apologies in advance if I state what are now logical and scientific truths with certainty and conviction that is uncomfortable. And it’s uncomfortable because it means paying the cost of adapting our thought and values such that they no are no longer false and harmful.


Writing in Testimony Will sound much more like I’m speaking as 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 always addressing subjects that promote cheerful or comforting discourse, but matters of conflict, moment, and passion.

What You’ll Notice

I intended to reach an audience of Europeans first, and the broader world second. The reason being that in a repetition of the undermining of the Roman Civilization, the western world has been under assault – by war against our institutions, because our civilization is most open to internal competition, internal sedition, and internal undermining. That’s because we evolved competing institutions rather than the monopoly institutions of a monolithic state of East Asia, or the monolithic religion of the Middle East and Central Asia (the South Eurasian Semitic peoples), or the monolithic culture of India (the South Eurasian Indic peoples). So, because of this market tolerance for competing institutions and elites, those same European institutions that allow and encourage European dynamism (rapid evolution) are more vulnerable to undermining and warfare from within than the other primary civilizations, of the other primary races.

So you’ll notice what appears to be a European bias in much of the work. This bias is due to the decidability provided by the value of the rate of evolution and conditions of prosperity made possible by that rate of evolution. And the West developed a set of habits we call a “civilizational strategy” that maximized adaptation(evolution) and therefore the rate of development and relative wealth and agency despite small numbers on the edge of the bronze age, in exchange for paying higher cognitive, psychological, emotional, reproductive, social, and political costs than other civilizations. And so, by maximizing adaptation the West evolved faster than all other civilizations combined in each of the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

It won’t become clear until we are well into our journey why it was that the west discovered and institutionalized a set of presumptions (Metaphysics) and a resulting system of thought consisting of what we think of as observable, testifiable, evidentiary, empirical, and scientific truths. And that this discovery of evidentiary truth and systemization of evidentiary truth, was an accident of history – a glorious accident.

But this is a work of logic, science, and logical and scientific law. Meaning that The Law is universal to man – and universal to all sentient, imitative, sympathizing, empathizing, cooperating, conscious creatures with cognitive agency for that matter.

So any person, any people, any civilization can make use of The Law and gain the benefits of doing so, or diverge from The Law and pay the costs of doing so. Just as we can gain the benefits or pay the costs of diverging from all logic, science, and evidence.

And because people always seek to pay the lowest costs and obtain the greatest benefits, and justify (excuse) their behavior as within the limits of criminal, ethical, and moral behavior, there will always be those who seek falsehood over truth, comfort over truth, magical thinking over truth, and who will externalize those costs on the rest of society in the hope that better people will pay them.

What You Will Like

( … ) (“The crystalline… logical … this science… Prophetic in its nature”)

( … explanatory power … ) ( … things ‘fit together’ … )

Why It Might Be Difficult

( … ) (appeal to intuition)

( … intellectual honesty … )

( … vocabulary … )

( … operational prose … )

( … experience with the sciences … )

It’s relatively easy to organize and synthesize information for people within or across scientific disciplines. Conversely, it’s relatively difficult to educate people in those disciplines and then teach and demonstrate a universal vocabulary, grammar, and logic of commensurability, consistency, and coherence across those disciplines.

This challenge of uniting the sciences is the reason P-Logic, P-Science, and P-Law is difficult for many people because to know WHY it works is very difficult until one understands it, even if USING it is like diagramming sentences and writing software – relatively easy.

Fluency in mathematics and philosophy is sometimes a hindrance because they are dependent on archaic vocabulary and set logic – instead of operational logic – a topic which we will cover early on.

Programming, like engineering, or chemistry is an operational logic and is as big an evolutionary leap in the logics (including math) as Calculus was in mathematics, Marginalism in economics, and Evolution in biology. And that’s what’s ‘gone wrong’. We haven’t applied that innovation widely enough – yet. Although we see some glimmers of hope in the next generation of AI theorists (like Joscha Bach).

What You Will Not Like

When justice lifts her scales and 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.  Common complaints have included the realization of just how robotic we are, because we so unconsciously run our civilizational software, just how simple we are because of it,  just how amoral man is, just how hostile the universe is, just how harmful or evil some people, groups, and civilizations are. Yet we still evolve and many of us manage to find the find joy in the brief lives we have within this hostile universe – by finding joy in one another and the victories of man despite that universe.

The Greeks invented both evidentiary truth and universal tragedy, and in that discovery, that joy in one another is the only means of tolerating the harsh reality that the universe is almost always and everywhere hostile to life – especially expensive, sentient, conscious life.

It’s this joy I seek to bring about – despite the tragedy of the truth.

But You’ll Benefit Either Way

We all benefit from learning the truth whether we like it or not. 😉

A Challenge

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 without reliance on the presumption of benevolent human intuition that agrees with you, then you’re just talking smack – because that set of deliverables 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 raise the cost of 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, or criminally.).

The era of destruction using critique by psychologism, ridicule, rallying, and shaming is over.

  • Faith: a Priest Commands Obedience To a fraud – to produce a supposed Good.
  • Theory: a Merchant Begs permission to Exchange – to obtain a mutual Preference.
  • Truth: a Sovereign Challenges you to Defeat Him – because it is the only way to know the Truth Of his abilities.

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


Yes No
Suggest Edit